Marra v. Lepore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marra v. Lepore

272 A.D.2d 590, 708 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6012

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 590 (Marra v. Lepore) 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

Marra v. Lepore, 272 A.D.2d 590, 708 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Lina Bennardo appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated October 27, 1998, which, in effect, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

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

The Supreme Court properly deemed the appellant’s affidavits to constitute her answer to the amended complaint (see, San-Dar Assocs. v Toro, 213 AD2d 233; see also, CPLR 320 [b]; Urena v NYNEX, Inc., 223 AD2d 442; Colbert v International Sec. Bur., 79 AD2d 448, 463). Upon the effective [591]*591joinder of issue, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in light of the evidentiary proof submitted by the parties (see, San-Dar Assocs. v Toro, supra; see also, Gutman v Livingston, 173 App Div 670, 674, affd 226 NY 582).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Luciano and Smith, 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 Lina Bennardo appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated October 27, 1998, which, in effect, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

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

The Supreme Court properly deemed the appellant’s affidavits to constitute her answer to the amended complaint (see, San-Dar Assocs. v Toro, 213 AD2d 233; see also, CPLR 320 [b]; Urena v NYNEX, Inc., 223 AD2d 442; Colbert v International Sec. Bur., 79 AD2d 448, 463). Upon the effective [591]*591joinder of issue, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in light of the evidentiary proof submitted by the parties (see, San-Dar Assocs. v Toro, supra; see also, Gutman v Livingston, 173 App Div 670, 674, affd 226 NY 582).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 590, 708 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marra-v-lepore-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack