National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2006-1 v. Townsend

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2006-1 v. Townsend

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 20, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 50223(U)

StatusPublished

This text of National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2006-1 v. Townsend (National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2006-1 v. Townsend) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2006-1 v. Townsend, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Nathaniel Townsend, Defendant-Appellant, -and- Carmen Pearce, Defendant.

Defendant Nathaniel Townsend appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered January 24, 2017, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered January 24, 2017, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment (same court and Judge), entered March 9, 2017, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting documentary evidence establishing that defendant executed a credit agreement with (nonparty) Sovereign Bank for a student loan in the amount of $6,000, that defendant defaulted on his obligations to repay the principal with interest, and that Sovereign transferred to plaintiff the rights under the agreement (see New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. v Feher, 291 AD2d 736, 737 [2002], lv dismissed and denied 98 NY2d 718 [2002]).

In opposition, defendant failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment. Contrary to defendant's arguments, the documents relied upon by the court in reaching its determination consisted of business records, a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule (see New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. v Barry, 267 AD2d 567 [1999]). Plaintiff additionally established its standing to maintain this action by submitting documentary proof that the loan was transferred.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 20, 2018

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

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Nathaniel Townsend, Defendant-Appellant, -and- Carmen Pearce, Defendant.

Defendant Nathaniel Townsend appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered January 24, 2017, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered January 24, 2017, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment (same court and Judge), entered March 9, 2017, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting documentary evidence establishing that defendant executed a credit agreement with (nonparty) Sovereign Bank for a student loan in the amount of $6,000, that defendant defaulted on his obligations to repay the principal with interest, and that Sovereign transferred to plaintiff the rights under the agreement (see New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. v Feher, 291 AD2d 736, 737 [2002], lv dismissed and denied 98 NY2d 718 [2002]).

In opposition, defendant failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment. Contrary to defendant's arguments, the documents relied upon by the court in reaching its determination consisted of business records, a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule (see New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp. v Barry, 267 AD2d 567 [1999]). Plaintiff additionally established its standing to maintain this action by submitting documentary proof that the loan was transferred.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 20, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2006-1 v. Townsend, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-coll-student-loan-trust-2006-1-v-townsend-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack