M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. Ethridge
| Decision Date | 02 December 2002 |
| Citation | 751 N.Y.S.2d 741,300 A.D.2d 286 |
| Parties | M & T MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JULIA ETHRIDGE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In support of its motion, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the production of a mortgage and an unpaid note. It was then incumbent upon the appellant to assert any defense which could properly raise a question of fact as to her default on the mortgage (see LBV Prop. v Greenport Dev. Co., 188 AD2d 588, 589). The appellant's conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations that the plaintiff behaved in a fraudulent and collusive manner are insufficient to create a triable issue of fact (see Marine Midland Bank v Renck, 208 AD2d 688, 689; LBV Prop. v Greenport Dev. Co., supra). The appellant alleges that she relied upon prior or contemporaneous statements of the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the note. Such assertions violate the parol evidence rule and are barred (see North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Bernstein & Gershman, 201 AD2d 472).
Moreover, the appellant has failed to demonstrate how further discovery might reveal the existence of a triable issue of fact which would warrant the denial of summary judgment (see Castrol, Inc. v Parm Trading Co. of N.Y.C., 228 AD2d 633, 634).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Rosa, 2016–04625
...the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the note ... violate the parol evidence rule and are barred" ( M & T Mtge. Corp. v. Ethridge, 300 A.D.2d 286, 287, 751 N.Y.S.2d 741 ; see North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v. Bernstein & Gershman, 201 A.D.2d 472, 607 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). " ‘[E]vidence of w......
-
Mew Equity, LLC v. Sutton Land Servs., LLC
...104 A.D.3d 839, 840, 961 N.Y.S.2d 535 ; Boster–Burton v. Burton, 73 A.D.3d 671, 673, 900 N.Y.S.2d 375 ; M & T Mtge. Corp. v. Ethridge, 300 A.D.2d 286, 287, 751 N.Y.S.2d 741 ). The Mew plaintiffs' contention that summary judgment would be premature because disclosure was not complete is with......
-
Solomon v. Burden
...of the note and mortgage ( see Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v. Sassouni, 68 A.D.3d 917, 918, 892 N.Y.S.2d 421;M & T Mtge. Corp. v. Ethridge, 300 A.D.2d 286, 287–287, 751 N.Y.S.2d 741;Bank of N.Y. v. Lockwood Venture Hous., 222 A.D.2d 633, 635 N.Y.S.2d 692;cf. Bontempts v. Aude Constr. Corp., 98 A......
-
Bontempts v. Aude Constr. Corp.
...documents ( see Braten v. Bankers Trust Co., 60 N.Y.2d at 161–162, 468 N.Y.S.2d 861, 456 N.E.2d 802;M & T Mtge. Corp. v. Ethridge, 300 A.D.2d 286, 287, 751 N.Y.S.2d 741;North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v. Bernstein & Gershman, 201 A.D.2d 472, 472–473, 607 N.Y.S.2d 135). Further, the defendant co......