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

138 A.D.3d 583, 28 N.Y.S.3d 612
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 2016·No. 381994/10 -910A 910 909·Published

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

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

138 A.D.3d 583 (VNB New York Corp. v. Pisces Properties, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Raia v. Pototschnig
127 A.D.3d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Red Tulip, LLC v. Neiva
44 A.D.3d 204 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)