Reichenbaum v. 265 Hicks Street, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reichenbaum v. 265 Hicks Street, LLC

15 A.D.3d 467, 789 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1652

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 467 (Reichenbaum v. 265 Hicks Street, LLC) 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

Reichenbaum v. 265 Hicks Street, LLC, 15 A.D.3d 467, 789 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 265 Hicks Street, LLC, SMD Capital Group, LLC, and Frank DeFalco appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 13, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In response to the prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 265 Hicks Street, LLC, SMD Capital Group, LLC, and Frank DeFalco appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 13, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In response to the prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 467, 789 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reichenbaum-v-265-hicks-street-llc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack