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

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

Docket3380 104131/11

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1812 (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanchez) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1812, 148 A.D.3d 482, 48 N.Y.S.3d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-sanchez-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack