Marine Midland Bank v. Brown

115 A.D.2d 523, 496 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54933
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 9, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 523 (Marine Midland Bank v. Brown) 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
Marine Midland Bank v. Brown, 115 A.D.2d 523, 496 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Brown appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated August 23, 1983, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered March 6, 1984, which upon confirming a report of a Referee, directed a sale of the subject premises. The plaintiff cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.

Appeal from the order dated August 23, 1983 dismissed (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [524]*524[1]). Plaintiff’s cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.20 [a], [f]).

Judgment affirmed.

Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

On the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff established, by documentary evidence, both the facts underlying its cause of action and the lack of a triable issue of fact. The papers submitted in opposition failed to present evidentiary facts showing the existence of a genuine and substantial issue. In the absence of such an evidentiary showing, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, La Touraine Coffee Co. v Deppe’s Diner, 109 AD2d 824; Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v A-Leet Commercial Servs., 70 AD2d 627).

Since the appellant-respondent failed to contest the Referee’s report and the judgment entered thereon at Special Term, he cannot challenge it on appeal. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bankers Trust v. McFarland
192 Misc. 2d 328 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
Camacho v. Camacho
214 A.D.2d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Tommell
163 Misc. 2d 526 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Cafferty
174 A.D.2d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Northeast Savings v. Rodriguez
159 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Scinta v. Scinta
129 A.D.2d 262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 A.D.2d 523, 496 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-bank-v-brown-nyappdiv-1985.