Lyder v. McKenzie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lyder v. McKenzie

270 A.D.2d 318, 705 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2725

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 318 (Lyder v. McKenzie) 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

Lyder v. McKenzie, 270 A.D.2d 318, 705 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to cancel certain fraudulently-obtained mortgages and recover damages for fraud, the third-party defendant Alberna Marcelle, a/k/a Anita Marcelle, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 30, 1999, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against her. There are triable issues of fact as to her role in the procurement of the subject mortgages (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Plorio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to cancel certain fraudulently-obtained mortgages and recover damages for fraud, the third-party defendant Alberna Marcelle, a/k/a Anita Marcelle, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 30, 1999, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against her. There are triable issues of fact as to her role in the procurement of the subject mortgages (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Plorio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 318, 705 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyder-v-mckenzie-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack