Sciacca v. Mandel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sciacca v. Mandel

265 A.D.2d 475, 696 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10433

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 18, 1999·Published

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered October 1, 1998, which, upon submission by the parties of a stipulated statement of facts, is in favor of the defendant Hilda Munz and against her on a counterclaim to vacate the mortgage, and, inter alia, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case (cf., Votta v Votta Enters., 249 AD2d 536; Village Bank v Wild Oaks Holding, 196 AD2d 812). Moreover, the evidence supports the finding that the mortgage was fraudulent (see, Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 276; see generally, Matter of Crane v Crane, 202 AD2d 665; Grumman Aerospace Corp. v Rice, 199 AD2d 365; AMEV Capital Corp. v Kirk, 180 AD2d 775; Lengares v B & A Warehousing, 159 AD2d 692). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed and the respondent was properly granted judgment on the counterclaim. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered October 1, 1998, which, upon submission by the parties of a stipulated statement of facts, is in favor of the defendant Hilda Munz and against her on a counterclaim to vacate the mortgage, and, inter alia, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case (cf., Votta v Votta Enters., 249 AD2d 536; Village Bank v Wild Oaks Holding, 196 AD2d 812). Moreover, the evidence supports the finding that the mortgage was fraudulent (see, Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 276; see generally, Matter of Crane v Crane, 202 AD2d 665; Grumman Aerospace Corp. v Rice, 199 AD2d 365; AMEV Capital Corp. v Kirk, 180 AD2d 775; Lengares v B & A Warehousing, 159 AD2d 692). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed and the respondent was properly granted judgment on the counterclaim. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Sciacca v. Mandel, 265 A.D.2d 475, 696 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 475 (Sciacca v. Mandel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related