Household Finance Realty Corp. v. Protovin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Household Finance Realty Corp. v. Protovin

259 A.D.2d 521, 684 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 521 (Household Finance Realty Corp. v. Protovin) 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

Household Finance Realty Corp. v. Protovin, 259 A.D.2d 521, 684 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Israel Protovin and Hindy Protovin appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated December 18, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment in its favor and the appointment of a Referee.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent established that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that the appellants have failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, 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 defendants Israel Protovin and Hindy Protovin appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated December 18, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment in its favor and the appointment of a Referee.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent established that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that the appellants have failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 521, 684 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/household-finance-realty-corp-v-protovin-nyappdiv-1999.