Percia v. Zdanowicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Percia v. Zdanowicz

116 A.D.2d 558, 497 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51413

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 558 (Percia v. Zdanowicz) 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

Percia v. Zdanowicz, 116 A.D.2d 558, 497 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), dated July 9, 1984, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Our examination of the evidence adduced at a traverse hearing reveals that service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) was proper.

We also find that the affidavit, affirmations and documentary proof submitted by plaintiff were sufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, defendant submitted only the affirmation of his attorney, who demonstrated no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the mortgage note and bond. Such an affirmation by counsel is without evidentiary value and, thus, is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), dated July 9, 1984, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Our examination of the evidence adduced at a traverse hearing reveals that service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) was proper.

We also find that the affidavit, affirmations and documentary proof submitted by plaintiff were sufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, defendant submitted only the affirmation of his attorney, who demonstrated no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the signing of the mortgage note and bond. Such an affirmation by counsel is without evidentiary value and, thus, is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 558, 497 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/percia-v-zdanowicz-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack