M & T Mortgage Corp. v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M & T Mortgage Corp. v. Holland

287 A.D.2d 695, 732 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 695 (M & T Mortgage Corp. v. Holland) 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

M & T Mortgage Corp. v. Holland, 287 A.D.2d 695, 732 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Charles Holland appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated April 28, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss his counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court properly determined that the appellant’s counterclaim alleging fraud was time-barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations. The appellant had knowledge of sufficient facts at the time of the alleged misrepresentation to put him on notice of any potential claims based on fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]; Neuhs v Ingersoll Rand Co., 115 AD2d 187; Bevilacqua v Bevilacqua, 233 AD2d 471). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, S. Miller and Florio, 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 Charles Holland appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated April 28, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss his counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court properly determined that the appellant’s counterclaim alleging fraud was time-barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations. The appellant had knowledge of sufficient facts at the time of the alleged misrepresentation to put him on notice of any potential claims based on fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]; Neuhs v Ingersoll Rand Co., 115 AD2d 187; Bevilacqua v Bevilacqua, 233 AD2d 471). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 695, 732 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-t-mortgage-corp-v-holland-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack