Greenpoint Bank v. Nazzal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenpoint Bank v. Nazzal

287 A.D.2d 485, 731 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 485 (Greenpoint Bank v. Nazzal) 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

Greenpoint Bank v. Nazzal, 287 A.D.2d 485, 731 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Wedad Nazzal appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered June 26, 2000, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on its first and second causes of action insofar as asserted against her and dismissing her counterclaim, and to strike the affirmative defenses asserted in her answer.

[486]*486Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the respondent by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant Zeid Rabadi was acting with actual authority when he executed the note and mortgage as her attorney-in-fact on June 16, 1998, using the subject premises as collateral for a $140,000 loan (see, Iglesias v Rodriguez, 168 AD2d 668). Therefore, the mortgage lien is valid and enforceable against the premises in favor of the respondent.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, 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 Wedad Nazzal appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered June 26, 2000, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on its first and second causes of action insofar as asserted against her and dismissing her counterclaim, and to strike the affirmative defenses asserted in her answer.

[486]*486Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the respondent by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant Zeid Rabadi was acting with actual authority when he executed the note and mortgage as her attorney-in-fact on June 16, 1998, using the subject premises as collateral for a $140,000 loan (see, Iglesias v Rodriguez, 168 AD2d 668). Therefore, the mortgage lien is valid and enforceable against the premises in favor of the respondent.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 485, 731 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenpoint-bank-v-nazzal-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack