National Loan Investors, LP v. Futersak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Loan Investors, LP v. Futersak

294 A.D.2d 505, 742 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242

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

DecidedMay 20, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 505 (National Loan Investors, LP v. Futersak) 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

National Loan Investors, LP v. Futersak, 294 A.D.2d 505, 742 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5206 to compel the sale of the interest of Sam Futersak, also known as Sam Olshin, in a homestead to satisfy a money judgment, Sam Futersak, also known as Sam Olshin, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated May 4, 2000, which, inter alia, directed the sale of his interest in the subject real property at public auction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the appellant failed to raise any triable issue of fact in response to the prima facie case established by the petition, the Supreme Court properly made “a summary determination on the pleadings and papers submitted as if a motion for summary judgment were before it” (Matter of Fisch v Aiken, 252 AD2d 556; see CPLR 409 [b]). Thus, contrary to the appellant’s contention, a hearing was unnecessary (see Matter of Fisch v Aiken, supra).

[506]*506The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Luciano, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5206 to compel the sale of the interest of Sam Futersak, also known as Sam Olshin, in a homestead to satisfy a money judgment, Sam Futersak, also known as Sam Olshin, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated May 4, 2000, which, inter alia, directed the sale of his interest in the subject real property at public auction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the appellant failed to raise any triable issue of fact in response to the prima facie case established by the petition, the Supreme Court properly made “a summary determination on the pleadings and papers submitted as if a motion for summary judgment were before it” (Matter of Fisch v Aiken, 252 AD2d 556; see CPLR 409 [b]). Thus, contrary to the appellant’s contention, a hearing was unnecessary (see Matter of Fisch v Aiken, supra).

[506]*506The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Luciano, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 505, 742 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-loan-investors-lp-v-futersak-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack