VNB New York Corp. v. Pisces Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

VNB New York Corp. v. Pisces Properties, Inc.

138 A.D.3d 583, 28 N.Y.S.3d 612

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

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket381994/10 -910A 910 909

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 583 (VNB New York Corp. v. Pisces Properties, Inc.) 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

VNB New York Corp. v. Pisces Properties, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 583, 28 N.Y.S.3d 612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 4, 2015, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Pisces Properties, Inc. and Elizabeth Raghoo in the amount of $656,253.21 plus fees, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered January 15, 2014, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In this commercial foreclosure action, plaintiff met its prima facie burden by producing the mortgage documents and undisputed evidence of default (see Red Tulip, LLC v Neiva, 44 AD3d 204, 209 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 741 [2008]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding their affirmative defenses to foreclosure. Defendants’ reliance on statutes governing pleading and notice requirements and mandating settlement conferences in foreclosure actions on certain home loans was misplaced as those statutes were not applicable to this action (see Raia v Pototschnig, 127 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 4, 2015, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Pisces Properties, Inc. and Elizabeth Raghoo in the amount of $656,253.21 plus fees, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered January 15, 2014, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In this commercial foreclosure action, plaintiff met its prima facie burden by producing the mortgage documents and undisputed evidence of default (see Red Tulip, LLC v Neiva, 44 AD3d 204, 209 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 741 [2008]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding their affirmative defenses to foreclosure. Defendants’ reliance on statutes governing pleading and notice requirements and mandating settlement conferences in foreclosure actions on certain home loans was misplaced as those statutes were not applicable to this action (see Raia v Pototschnig, 127 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2015]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 583, 28 N.Y.S.3d 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vnb-new-york-corp-v-pisces-properties-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack