Randazzo v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Randazzo v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

121 A.D.3d 444, 994 N.Y.S.2d 84

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2014

Docket13116 302563/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 444 (Randazzo v. Bank of New York Mellon 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

Randazzo v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 121 A.D.3d 444, 994 N.Y.S.2d 84 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered January 8, 2014, which granted defendants The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNY) and Vericrest Financial, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated against said defendants.

The documentary evidence submitted by defendants was substantially the same as the evidence submitted by defendant BNY in a companion wrongful death action arising from the same deadly fire. As we previously decided, this evidence failed to conclusively refute plaintiffs occupants’ factual pleadings alleging that defendant Domingo Cedano, owner of the multiple dwelling, had abandoned the premises within the meaning of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1307 (1) (see Lezama v Cedano, 119 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered January 8, 2014, which granted defendants The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNY) and Vericrest Financial, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated against said defendants.

The documentary evidence submitted by defendants was substantially the same as the evidence submitted by defendant BNY in a companion wrongful death action arising from the same deadly fire. As we previously decided, this evidence failed to conclusively refute plaintiffs occupants’ factual pleadings alleging that defendant Domingo Cedano, owner of the multiple dwelling, had abandoned the premises within the meaning of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1307 (1) (see Lezama v Cedano, 119 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 444, 994 N.Y.S.2d 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randazzo-v-bank-of-new-york-mellon-corp-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack