Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanchez

2017 NY Slip Op 1812, 148 A.D.3d 482, 48 N.Y.S.3d 578

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 2017·No. 3380 104131/11·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J-), entered January 15, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found the affidavit submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion sufficient for prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Contrary to defendant’s contention, it was not necessary for the affiant to possess firsthand knowledge of the mechanics of the shortfall requirement in the parties’ short sale agreement, as her affidavit was not submitted to explain the transaction. The motion court correctly found the short sale agreement unambiguous and not *483 deceptive (see Sanif Inc. v Iannotti, 119 AD2d 654 [2d Dept 1986]), and properly rejected defendant’s defenses as conclusory and unsubstantiated in finding that they failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J-), entered January 15, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found the affidavit submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion sufficient for prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Contrary to defendant’s contention, it was not necessary for the affiant to possess firsthand knowledge of the mechanics of the shortfall requirement in the parties’ short sale agreement, as her affidavit was not submitted to explain the transaction. The motion court correctly found the short sale agreement unambiguous and not *483 deceptive (see Sanif Inc. v Iannotti, 119 AD2d 654 [2d Dept 1986]), and properly rejected defendant’s defenses as conclusory and unsubstantiated in finding that they failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 1812, 148 A.D.3d 482, 48 N.Y.S.3d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 1812 (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanchez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related