Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. O'Connor

63 A.D.3d 832, 880 N.Y.S.2d 696

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

DecidedJune 9, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 832 (Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. O'Connor) 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

Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. O'Connor, 63 A.D.3d 832, 880 N.Y.S.2d 696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered April 22, 2008, which denied its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Terrence C. O’Connor and Sheila K. O’Connor and for the appointment of a referee.

[833]*833Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the respondents, and the plaintiffs motion is granted.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default (see U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. TR U/S 6/01/98 [Home Equity Loan Trust 1998-2] v Alvarez, 49 AD3d 711 [2008]; Daniel Perla Assoc., LP v 101 Kent Assoc., Inc., 40 AD3d 677 [2007]; US Bank Trust N.A. Trustee v Butti, 16 AD3d 408 [2005]; Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y. v O’Kane, 308 AD2d 482 [2003]). In opposition, it was incumbent upon the defendants Terrence C. O’Connor and Sheila K. O’Connor “to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of [their] defenses” (US Bank Trust N.A. Trustee v Butti, 16 AD3d at 408). These defendants failed to do so. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against those two defendants. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered April 22, 2008, which denied its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Terrence C. O’Connor and Sheila K. O’Connor and for the appointment of a referee.

[833]*833Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the respondents, and the plaintiffs motion is granted.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default (see U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. TR U/S 6/01/98 [Home Equity Loan Trust 1998-2] v Alvarez, 49 AD3d 711 [2008]; Daniel Perla Assoc., LP v 101 Kent Assoc., Inc., 40 AD3d 677 [2007]; US Bank Trust N.A. Trustee v Butti, 16 AD3d 408 [2005]; Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y. v O’Kane, 308 AD2d 482 [2003]). In opposition, it was incumbent upon the defendants Terrence C. O’Connor and Sheila K. O’Connor “to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of [their] defenses” (US Bank Trust N.A. Trustee v Butti, 16 AD3d at 408). These defendants failed to do so. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against those two defendants. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 832, 880 N.Y.S.2d 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-mutual-bank-fa-v-oconnor-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack