LaSalle National Bank v. Clearstory Number Two & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaSalle National Bank v. Clearstory Number Two & Co.

282 A.D.2d 505, 722 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 505 (LaSalle National Bank v. Clearstory Number Two & Co.) 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

LaSalle National Bank v. Clearstory Number Two & Co., 282 A.D.2d 505, 722 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Clearstory Number Two & Company, Islandia Shopping Center Number Two Limited Partnership, and Cordish Islandia Number Two, L. L. C. appeal, and the defendant Clearstory & Company separately appeals, as limited by their briefs, from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated January 19, 2000, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

There are questions of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Clearstory Number Two & Company, Islandia Shopping Center Number Two Limited Partnership, and Cordish Islandia Number Two, L. L. C. appeal, and the defendant Clearstory & Company separately appeals, as limited by their briefs, from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated January 19, 2000, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

There are questions of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 505, 722 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lasalle-national-bank-v-clearstory-number-two-co-nyappdiv-2001.