Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel

101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.2d 896
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 26, 2012·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The resolution of credibility issues by the hearing court is entitled to deference on appeal, and will be upheld if supported by evidence in the record (see generally Gass v Gass, 42 AD3d 393 [2007]; Ahrens v Chisena, 40 AD3d 787 [2007]; Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536 [2006]). The hearing record in this case supports the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff did not effectuate service of the motion for a deficiency judgment upon the respondents (see RPAPL 1371 [2]; First Nationwide Bank v Pegasus Agency, 253 AD2d 536 [1998]), and we discern no basis to disturb that determination.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel, 101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

101 A.D.3d 1100 (Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jhang v. Nassau University Medical Center
140 A.D.3d 1018 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Prosolov v. PSRS Realty
128 A.D.3d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown v. Chacko
115 A.D.3d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Chusid v. Silvera
110 A.D.3d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)