Ghartey v. Bank of Baltimore

243 A.D.2d 538, 665 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9796
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 538 (Ghartey v. Bank of Baltimore) 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
Ghartey v. Bank of Baltimore, 243 A.D.2d 538, 665 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to set aside a foreclosure sale, the plaintiff Alfred Ghartey appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), both dated September 13, 1996, which respectively (1) granted the motion of the defendant Berkeley Federal Bank [539]*539and Trust to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendant Berkeley Federal Bank and Trust.

Ordered that the order dated September 13, 1996, which granted the motion by Berkeley Federal Bank and Trust and dismissed the complaint is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 13, 1996, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is dismissed as academic, and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, Alfred Ghartey, is barred from raising in this action any claims which could have been raised in the foreclosure action (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379; Cherico v Bank of N. Y., 211 AD2d 961). Furthermore, the conclusory allegations in the complaint are without factual support (see, M.J. & K. Co. v Matthew Bender & Co., 220 AD2d 488) and are insufficient to establish any viable cause of action (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the complaint.

In view of our determination, the appeal from the order which denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is dismissed as academic. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Montoute v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
208 A.D.3d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
83-17 Broadway Corp. v. Debcon Financial Services, Inc.
39 A.D.3d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 538, 665 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ghartey-v-bank-of-baltimore-nyappdiv-1997.