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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 25, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

203 A.D.2d 548 (River Bank America v. Gatov) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related