Rukaj v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rukaj v. Roth

237 A.D.2d 503, 656 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2856

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 503 (Rukaj v. Roth) 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

Rukaj v. Roth, 237 A.D.2d 503, 656 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant David J. Roth appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered January 23, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant concedes that he defaulted in the repayment of the subject loan. Moreover, the plaintiff presented evidentiary proof in admissible form, namely a copy of an Assignment of Mortgage, and an Assignment Agreement, which established his cause of action for foreclosure against the appellant, based upon the appellant’s indebtedness of $1,499,000 [504]*504plus interest, various taxes, and expenses (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 559). The answer, affidavit, and bank statements submitted by the appellant contained unsubstantiated allegations, and failed to demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, 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 defendant David J. Roth appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered January 23, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant concedes that he defaulted in the repayment of the subject loan. Moreover, the plaintiff presented evidentiary proof in admissible form, namely a copy of an Assignment of Mortgage, and an Assignment Agreement, which established his cause of action for foreclosure against the appellant, based upon the appellant’s indebtedness of $1,499,000 [504]*504plus interest, various taxes, and expenses (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 559). The answer, affidavit, and bank statements submitted by the appellant contained unsubstantiated allegations, and failed to demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 503, 656 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rukaj-v-roth-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack