Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel

101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.2d 896

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1100 (Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-funding-lp-v-samuel-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack