Paterson v. Rodney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paterson v. Rodney

285 A.D.2d 453, 727 N.Y.S.2d 333, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6903

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 453 (Paterson v. Rodney) 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

Paterson v. Rodney, 285 A.D.2d 453, 727 N.Y.S.2d 333, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mexieta Rodney appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, [454]*454J.), dated March 22, 2000, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage and mortgage note, along with evidence of default by the appellant (see, Kowalski Enters. v Sem Intl., 250 AD2d 648). This shifted the burden to the appellant to show the existence of a triable factual issue (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The appellant’s unsubstantiated and conclusory assertion that the mortgage was usurious was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (see, LaGreco v Pafundi, 181 AD2d 660). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Smith and Cozier, 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 Mexieta Rodney appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, [454]*454J.), dated March 22, 2000, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage and mortgage note, along with evidence of default by the appellant (see, Kowalski Enters. v Sem Intl., 250 AD2d 648). This shifted the burden to the appellant to show the existence of a triable factual issue (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The appellant’s unsubstantiated and conclusory assertion that the mortgage was usurious was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (see, LaGreco v Pafundi, 181 AD2d 660). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 453, 727 N.Y.S.2d 333, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paterson-v-rodney-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack