State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Boayke

249 A.D.2d 535, 671 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4607
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 27, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 535 (State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Boayke) 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
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Boayke, 249 A.D.2d 535, 671 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Esther Williams Boayke appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered May 2, 1997, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to reargue, and upon granting that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew, adhered to its original order entered October 2,1996, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the appeal from that portion of the order which denied the appellant’s motion for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, the order entered October 2, 1996, is vacated, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, the assignee of a note and mortgage executed by the appellant, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage when the appellant defaulted in making payment. An assignee of a mortgage takes subject to all defenses and counterclaims that can be asserted against the assignor (see, Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 54 NY2d 580, 586; Caprara v Charels Ct. Assocs., 216 AD2d 722; Granick v Mobach, 13 AD2d 534). Upon our review of the record, we find that triable issues of fact exist concerning the appellant’s defenses of fraud and usury which preclude summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

21st Mtge. Corp. v. Rudman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022
Everhome Mtge. Co. v. Aber
2021 NY Slip Op 03574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Vitellas
131 A.D.3d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Alvarez
49 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. McLean
42 A.D.3d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
TPZ Corp. v. Dabbs
25 A.D.3d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Crispino v. Greenpoint Mortgage Corp.
304 A.D.2d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Losner v. Cashline, L.P.
303 A.D.2d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 535, 671 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-street-bank-trust-co-v-boayke-nyappdiv-1998.