GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Frew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Frew

226 A.D.2d 424, 640 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3565

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 424 (GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Frew) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Frew, 226 A.D.2d 424, 640 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant William J. Frew, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered May 12,1995, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under these circumstances, where the plaintiff clearly rejected the offer of the defendant William J. Frew, Jr., to transfer the deed to certain mortgaged property as a means of satisfying the indebtedness thereon, there exist no triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to foreclose the mortgage (cf., Sanders & Assocs. v Roth, 140 AD2d 513). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant William J. Frew, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered May 12,1995, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under these circumstances, where the plaintiff clearly rejected the offer of the defendant William J. Frew, Jr., to transfer the deed to certain mortgaged property as a means of satisfying the indebtedness thereon, there exist no triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to foreclose the mortgage (cf., Sanders & Assocs. v Roth, 140 AD2d 513). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 424, 640 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ge-capital-mortgage-services-inc-v-frew-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack