Scadura v. Robillard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scadura v. Robillard

256 A.D.2d 567, 683 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14016

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 567 (Scadura v. Robillard) 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

Scadura v. Robillard, 256 A.D.2d 567, 683 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 9, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendants Lawrence C. Gallagher and Nancy V. Gallagher to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Kalivia Food Corp. v Hunts Point Coop. Mkt., 244 AD2d 460; Fernandez v Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 188 AD2d 700). The respondents failed to carry that burden. While the respondents’ documentary evidence demonstrated that, based upon their unilateral amortization calculations, the respondents tendered an amount that they believed was sufficient to satisfy their indebtedness to the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserted a facially-valid claim for an additional $39,461.57. Inasmuch as the documentary evidence did not conclusively prove that the outstanding debt had been paid in full and the plaintiffs claim was unfounded, the respondents were not entitled to the dismissal of the foreclosure action. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 9, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendants Lawrence C. Gallagher and Nancy V. Gallagher to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Kalivia Food Corp. v Hunts Point Coop. Mkt., 244 AD2d 460; Fernandez v Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 188 AD2d 700). The respondents failed to carry that burden. While the respondents’ documentary evidence demonstrated that, based upon their unilateral amortization calculations, the respondents tendered an amount that they believed was sufficient to satisfy their indebtedness to the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserted a facially-valid claim for an additional $39,461.57. Inasmuch as the documentary evidence did not conclusively prove that the outstanding debt had been paid in full and the plaintiffs claim was unfounded, the respondents were not entitled to the dismissal of the foreclosure action. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 567, 683 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scadura-v-robillard-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack