Lend-Mor Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Nicholas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lend-Mor Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Nicholas

85 A.D.3d 876, 925 N.Y.S.2d 834

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

DecidedJune 14, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 876 (Lend-Mor Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Nicholas) 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

Lend-Mor Mortgage Bankers Corp. v. Nicholas, 85 A.D.3d 876, 925 N.Y.S.2d 834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), dated March 19, 2010, which denied that branch of its cross motion which was to compel the plaintiff to respond to certain discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Company (hereinafter Ameriquest), which was to compel the plaintiff to respond to certain discovery demands.

Ameriquest’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Hall and Austin, 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 Ameriquest Mortgage Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), dated March 19, 2010, which denied that branch of its cross motion which was to compel the plaintiff to respond to certain discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Company (hereinafter Ameriquest), which was to compel the plaintiff to respond to certain discovery demands.

Ameriquest’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 876, 925 N.Y.S.2d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lend-mor-mortgage-bankers-corp-v-nicholas-nyappdiv-2011.