US Bank N.A. v. Royes
This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 06169 (US Bank N.A. v. Royes) 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.
Opinion
| US Bank N.A. v Royes |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 06169 |
| Decided on October 28, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 28, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
JEFFREY A. COHEN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
2019-02052
(Index No. 505350/14)
v
David Royes, appellant, et al., defendants.
Michael Kennedy Karlson, New York, NY, for appellant.
Knuckles, Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, Elmsford, NY (Louis A. Levithan of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant David Royes appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated December 3, 2018. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon an order of the same court (Mark I. Partnow, J.) dated May 1, 2017, inter alia, granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant David Royes and for an order of reference, among other things, granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and directed the sale of the subject premises.
ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.
We affirm the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The plaintiff was not required to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 for reasons stated in Vanderbilt Mtge. & Fin., Inc. v Ammon (179 AD3d 1138) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ozcan (154 AD3d 822, 824). The remaining contentions of the defendant David Royes are without merit.
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 NY Slip Op 06169, 131 N.Y.S.3d 220, 187 A.D.3d 1242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-na-v-royes-nyappdiv-2020.