From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Trust Co. v. Meredith Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1998
256 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 28, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to the plaintiff against the appellants dismissing their counterclaims.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default. It is then incumbent upon the defendants to raise a viable question of fact ( see, Village Bank v. Wild Oaks Holding, 196 A.D.2d 812). In the instant case, the plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellants do not dispute the fact of default, but raise numerous affirmative defenses and counterclaims which they claim relieve them of their default.

The appellants made unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations concerning, inter alia, the impropriety of the conduct of the plaintiff bank in first paying itself the interest owed it by the appellants, pursuant to the parties' agreements, from a collection account set up at the plaintiff, before disbursing funds to cover the expenses related to the maintenance of the mortgaged property. Upon our investigation of the record, we find that these allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the foreclosure of the mortgage.

Upon correctly granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, the court severed the appellants' counterclaims. Upon searching the record, we grant the plaintiff summary judgment dismissing the appellants' counterclaims ( see, Merritt Hill Vineyard v. Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 N.Y.2d 106; Martin v. Reedy, 194 A.D.2d 255, 258), since, in opposing the plaintiffs motion, the appellants came forward with no evidence to substantiate their assertions of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, or other misconduct by the plaintiff.

Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Trust Co. v. Meredith Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1998
256 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Trust Co. v. Meredith Avenue Associates

Case Details

Full title:BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI TRUST COMPANY, Respondent, v. MEREDITH AVENUE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 28, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
683 N.Y.S.2d 106

Citing Cases

Charter One Bank v. Houston

Any party may move for summary judgment after issue has been joined (see CPLR 3212[a]; Chakir v. Dime Sav.…

Anna Louise Realty Corp. v. Grahel Assoc. LLC

As a second affirmative defense, defendants Grahel and Grace assert that plaintiff accepted payments after…