Benizzi v. Bank of Hudson
| Decision Date | 17 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | 503591. |
| Citation | 50 A.D.3d 1372,855 N.Y.S.2d 764,2008 NY Slip Op 03374 |
| Parties | HENRY BENIZZI et al., Respondents, v. BANK OF THE HUDSON, Formerly Known as MSB BANK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ledina, J.), entered December 26, 2006 in Sullivan County, which, among other things, partially denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In this dispute about the enforceability of a UCC-1 statement filed by defendant against a manufactured home located on property owned by plaintiffs, the parties submitted neither depositions nor affidavits of the parties in support of their motions for summary judgment. The basic facts, as gleaned from the record, reveal that, in 1992, the parents of plaintiff Henry Benizzi were permitted by plaintiffs to place a double-wide manufactured home owned by the parents on land owned by plaintiffs in the hamlet of Hurleyville, Sullivan County. In November 1995, the parents applied for and later received a home equity loan of $40,000 from defendant. The loan application listed real property of the parents purportedly worth $80,000 in the hamlet of Glen Wild, Sullivan County. However, the parents did not own that lot, but apparently intended to use the home equity loan to purchase the lot. The purchase never occurred and, in February 1996, defendant filed the disputed UCC-1 statement as to the manufactured home (located on plaintiffs' property), which had been listed as an asset on the parents' loan application.
Thereafter, the parents defaulted on the loan (one parent has since died) and, when plaintiffs attempted to obtain a loan from a different bank secured by their Hurleyville property, their application was denied because of the UCC-1 statement filed against the manufactured home, which ostensibly was considered permanently attached to the property. Plaintiffs requested defendant to remove the UCC-1 filing so they could obtain the loan on their real property. Defendant refused and plaintiffs commenced this action, with both parties eventually moving for summary judgment. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion and, while granting defendant's motion with regard to the cause of action asserting interference with a contractual relationship, otherwise denied defendant's motion. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. It is well settled that the "drastic remedy [of summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Bills
...is the key to the procedure' (Esteve v. Abad, 271 AppDiv 725, 727, 68 N.Y.S.2d 322, 324)” ( id.;see also, Benizzi v. Bank of Hudson, 50 AD3d 1372, 1373, 855 N.Y.S.2d 764, 765;Gadani v. Dormitory Auth. of State of NY, 43 AD3d 1218, 1219, 841 N.Y.S.2d 709), and summary judgment “should not be......
-
Morette v. Kemper, Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co.
...is the key to the procedure' ( Esteve v. Abad, 271 App.Div. 725, 727, 68 N.Y.S.2d 322, 324)” ( id.; see also, Benizzi v. Bank of Hudson, 50 A.D.3d 1372, 1373, 855 N.Y.S.2d 764, 765; Gadani v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 43 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 841 N.Y.S.2d 709). Summary judgment “should......
-
Dandomar Co. v. Town of Pleasant Valley Town Bd.
... ... Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 134 N.Y. 397, 407, 31 N.E. 887 ; Ciarelli v. Lynch, 69 A.D.3d 1008, 1010, 892 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
A child under the Age of Eighteen Years v. Wright (In re Commitment of Guardianship & Custody Pursuant to § 384–B of Soc. Servs. Law K.C.)
...is the key to the procedure' (Esteve v. Abad, 271 AppDiv 725, 727, 68 N.Y.S.2d 322, 324)” ( id.;see also, Benizzi v. Bank of Hudson, 50 A.D.3d 1372, 1373, 855 N.Y.S.2d 764, 765;Gadani v. Dormitory Auth. of State of NY, 43 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 841 N.Y.S.2d 709), and summary judgment “should no......