NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee v. 2388 Nostrand Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee v. 2388 Nostrand Corp.

69 A.D.3d 594, 892 N.Y.2d 188

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 594 (NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee v. 2388 Nostrand Corp.) 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

NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee v. 2388 Nostrand Corp., 69 A.D.3d 594, 892 N.Y.2d 188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[595]*595In this action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the respondent did not pay the outstanding balance due under the lien (see NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v Orit Diagnostic Ctr., Inc., 19 AD3d 668 [2005]). In opposition, the respondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact rebutting the plaintiffs’ showing or as to the merit of its affirmative defenses or its counterclaim (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 41 AD3d 590 [2007]; Trans World Grocers v Sultana Crackers, 257 AD2d 616, 617 [1999]; Home Sav. of Am. v Isaacson, 240 AD2d 633 [1997]). Similarly, the plaintiffs demonstrated their entitlement to relief on the remaining branches of their motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

[595]*595In this action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the respondent did not pay the outstanding balance due under the lien (see NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v Orit Diagnostic Ctr., Inc., 19 AD3d 668 [2005]). In opposition, the respondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact rebutting the plaintiffs’ showing or as to the merit of its affirmative defenses or its counterclaim (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 41 AD3d 590 [2007]; Trans World Grocers v Sultana Crackers, 257 AD2d 616, 617 [1999]; Home Sav. of Am. v Isaacson, 240 AD2d 633 [1997]). Similarly, the plaintiffs demonstrated their entitlement to relief on the remaining branches of their motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 594, 892 N.Y.2d 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyctl-1998-2-trustee-v-2388-nostrand-corp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack