Garrison Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Arthur Kill Hillside Dev., LLC
| Decision Date | 22 March 2011 |
| Citation | 82 A.D.3d 1042,918 N.Y.S.2d 894 |
| Parties | GARRISON SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND, L.P., respondent, v. ARTHUR KILL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., appellants, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mark D. Mermel, Great Neck, N.Y., for appellants.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York, N.Y. (Matthew D. Parrott and James Tampellini of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Arthur Kill Hillside Development, LLC, LP Arthur Kill Development, LLC, LP Hillside Arthur Kill Development, LLC, YLPF Trust, and Yehuda Leib Puretz appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated December 2, 2009, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Arthur Kill Hillside Development, LLC, LP Arthur Kill Development, LLC, LP Hillside Arthur Kill Development, LLC, and Yehuda Leib Puretz.
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent, payable by the defendants Arthur Kill Hillside Development, LLC, LP Arthur Kill Development, LLC, LP Hillside Arthur Kill Development, LLC, and Yehuda Leib Puretz.
The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendants Arthur Kill Hillside Development, LLC, LP Arthur Kill Development, LLC, and LP Hillside Arthur Kill Development, LLC (hereinafter collectively the borrowers), to foreclose a commercial mortgage and for related relief. The plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the borrowers and Yehuda Leib Puretz, the managing member of all three borrowers and guarantor of a mortgage loan made by the plaintiff to the borrowers (hereinafter collectively the appellants). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion.
"The plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and documentation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v. Redeemed Christian Church of God, Int'l Chapel, HHH Parish, Long Island, N.Y., Inc.
...of a default in payment or other material terms set forth in the mortgage ( see Garrison Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Arthur, 82 A.D.3d 1042, 918 N.Y.S.2d 894 [2d Dept 2011]; Swedbank, AB v. Hale Ave. Borrower, LLC., 89 A.D.3d 922, 932 N.Y.S.2d 540 [2d Dept 2011]; Rossrock Fund II, L......
-
People's United Bank v. Whitford Dev., Inc.
...Van Brunt Prop., LLC, 95 AD3d 1158, 945 N.Y.S.2d 330 [2d Dept 2012]; Garrison Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Arthur, 82 AD3d 1042, 918 N.Y.S.2d 894 [2d Dept 2011]; Swedbank, AB v. Hale Ave. Borrower, LLC., 89 AD3d 922, 932 N.Y.S.2d 540 [2d Dept 2011]; Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v. Osborne,......
-
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Major Holdings, LLC
...in payment or any other material term set forth in the mortgage ( see Garrison Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Arthur, 82 AD3d 1042, 918 N.Y.S.2d 894 [2d Dept 2011]; Swedbank, AB v. Hale Ave. Borrower, LLC., 89 AD3d 922, 932 N.Y.S.2d 540 [2d Dept 2011]; Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v. Osborne......
-
Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Raven Brands, Inc.
...belief of the president of the defendant Raven Brands, Inc. (hereinafter Raven), that his telephone conversation with the plaintiff's [82 A.D.3d 1042]attorney and his subsequent letters denying the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to answer the complaint did not constitute a suf......