LTCB Trust Co. v. 3 East 54th Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LTCB Trust Co. v. 3 East 54th Street Associates

248 A.D.2d 275, 670 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3204

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 275 (LTCB Trust Co. v. 3 East 54th Street Associates) 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

LTCB Trust Co. v. 3 East 54th Street Associates, 248 A.D.2d 275, 670 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered July 10, 1997, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for foreclosure of a mortgage, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant claims that its failure to make the full interest payment that resulted in acceleration of the loan was a “hyper-technical default” wrongfully induced by plaintiffs misrepresentation that such a default was necessary “to make a re[276]*276structuring of the loan more palatable to Plaintiffs home office”. We agree with the IAS Court that defendant’s alleged reliance on such alleged misrepresentation involving this $60 million loan fails to establish a triable issue with respect to estopping plaintiff from asserting the default (see, Chemical Bank v Broadway 55-56th St. Assocs., 220 AD2d 308). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered July 10, 1997, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for foreclosure of a mortgage, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant claims that its failure to make the full interest payment that resulted in acceleration of the loan was a “hyper-technical default” wrongfully induced by plaintiffs misrepresentation that such a default was necessary “to make a re[276]*276structuring of the loan more palatable to Plaintiffs home office”. We agree with the IAS Court that defendant’s alleged reliance on such alleged misrepresentation involving this $60 million loan fails to establish a triable issue with respect to estopping plaintiff from asserting the default (see, Chemical Bank v Broadway 55-56th St. Assocs., 220 AD2d 308). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 275, 670 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ltcb-trust-co-v-3-east-54th-street-associates-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack