River Bank America v. Gatov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

River Bank America v. Gatov

203 A.D.2d 548, 611 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328

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

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 548 (River Bank America v. Gatov) 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

River Bank America v. Gatov, 203 A.D.2d 548, 611 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Janet Gatov appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owén, J.), dated February 26, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against her and dismissed her cross claims against defendant Imperial Savings Association without prejudice to the resolution of those claims in a separate action commenced by Imperial Savings Association and pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County.

We find that the second mortgage loan was not usurious (see, Banking Law § 590-a [1]) and that the Supreme Court should have granted the motion of Imperial Savings for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims with prejudice (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110). Moreover, as there were no triable issues of fact raised in this case, summary judgment was properly granted to River Bank.

We have examined Gatov’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Janet Gatov appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owén, J.), dated February 26, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against her and dismissed her cross claims against defendant Imperial Savings Association without prejudice to the resolution of those claims in a separate action commenced by Imperial Savings Association and pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County.

We find that the second mortgage loan was not usurious (see, Banking Law § 590-a [1]) and that the Supreme Court should have granted the motion of Imperial Savings for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims with prejudice (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110). Moreover, as there were no triable issues of fact raised in this case, summary judgment was properly granted to River Bank.

We have examined Gatov’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 548, 611 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/river-bank-america-v-gatov-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack