Ray-C Realty Corp. v. Zarfin Realty Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Ray-C Realty Corp. v. Zarfin Realty Corp.

93 Misc. 2d 279, 402 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2050

DecidedJanuary 19, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 93 Misc. 2d 279 (Ray-C Realty Corp. v. Zarfin Realty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ray-C Realty Corp. v. Zarfin Realty Corp., 93 Misc. 2d 279, 402 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2050 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Hilda G. Schwartz, J.

In this action for foreclosure the plaintiff moves to strike the answer and for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, and for the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due.

Dr. Jacob Haberman is the only defendant appearing in response to this motion. He claims issues of fact are raised by the plaintiff’s allegations, and asserts that the plaintiff has failed to annex the documentary evidence in support of the allegations.

The plaintiff, in its motion for summary judgment, refers to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint alleging the execution of the bond, an acceleration clause in case of default. It also refers to paragraph 4 which alleges an extension agreement and paragraph 5 citing certain provisions of the mortgage. None of these instruments or documents have been submitted to the court on plaintiff’s motion. A motion for summary [280]*280judgment requires the submission of evidence, not mere referral to recorded instruments.

From a review of all the papers submitted on this motion and on file in the County Clerk’s office it appears that no copies of the operative documents have been submitted to the court.

The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers, including copies of the documents upon which the complaint is based.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Hilda G. Schwartz, J.

In this action for foreclosure the plaintiff moves to strike the answer and for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, and for the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due.

Dr. Jacob Haberman is the only defendant appearing in response to this motion. He claims issues of fact are raised by the plaintiff’s allegations, and asserts that the plaintiff has failed to annex the documentary evidence in support of the allegations.

The plaintiff, in its motion for summary judgment, refers to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint alleging the execution of the bond, an acceleration clause in case of default. It also refers to paragraph 4 which alleges an extension agreement and paragraph 5 citing certain provisions of the mortgage. None of these instruments or documents have been submitted to the court on plaintiff’s motion. A motion for summary [280]*280judgment requires the submission of evidence, not mere referral to recorded instruments.

From a review of all the papers submitted on this motion and on file in the County Clerk’s office it appears that no copies of the operative documents have been submitted to the court.

The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers, including copies of the documents upon which the complaint is based.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 Misc. 2d 279, 402 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-c-realty-corp-v-zarfin-realty-corp-nysupct-1978.