Zanfini v. Chandler, 79 A.D.3d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Zanfini v. Chandler, 79 A.D.3d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Grodsky v. Moore (nyappdiv, 2016-02-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grodsky v. Moore
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, in opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the appellants raised a triable issue of fact with respect to their affirmative defense alleging usury (see Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2010]; cf. Chiarelli v Kotsifos, 5 AD3d 345, 346 [2004]; Tower Funding v Berry Realty, 302 AD2d 513, 514-515 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although the plaintiff Lawrence Equity Holdings, LLC (hereinafter Lawrence), demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for foreclosure (see Citibank, N.A. v Van Brunt Props., LLC, 95 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2012]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2010]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TD Bank, N.A. v. 126 Spruce Street, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although the plaintiff Lawrence Equity Holdings, LLC (hereinafter Lawrence), demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for foreclosure (see Citibank, N.A. v Van Brunt Props., LLC, 95 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2012]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2010]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Redrock Kings, LLC v. Kings Hotel, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Redrock Kings, LLC v. Kings Hotel, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bedrock established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing, inter alia, the subject note and mortgage, and proof of the Kings Hotel defendants’ default, thereby shifting the burden to the Kings Hotel defendants to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen, 80 AD3d 753, 755 [2011]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010]; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD 3d 692, 693 [2007]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sudit v. Roth
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing a so-ordered stipulation setting forth the appellants’ obligation arising from certain underlying mortgages and agreements, and proof of the appellants’ default (see Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sudit v. Roth
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing a so-ordered stipulation setting forth the appellants’ obligation arising from certain underlying mortgages and agreements, and proof of the appellants’ default (see Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citibank, N.A. v. Van Brunt Properties, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
A mortgagee establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in a foreclosure action where it produces both the mortgage and unpaid note, together with evidence of the mortgagor’s default (see Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2010]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; Household Fin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) U.S. Bank, National Ass'n v. Sharif
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“ ‘Entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure may be established, as a matter of law, where a mortgagee produces both the mortgage and unpaid note, together with evidence of the mortgagor’s default, thereby shifting the burden to the mortgagor to demonstrate, through both competent and admissible evidence, any defense which could raise a question of fact’ ” (Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2010], quoting HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; see Household Fin.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ronald Zanfini
v.
Garnetts Shay Chandler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 21, 2010.
79 A.D.3d 1031
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), entered February 17, 2010, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Garnette Shay Chandler.

“Entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure may be established, as a matter of law, where a mortgagee produces both the mortgage and unpaid note, together with evidence of the mortgagor’s default, thereby shifting the burden to the[*1032] mortgagor to demonstrate, through both competent and admissible evidence, any defense which could raise a question of fact” (HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007]; see Household Fin. Realty Corp. of N.Y. v Winn, 19 AD3d 545 [2005]; Sears Mtge. Corp. v Yaghobi, 19 AD3d 402 [2005]; Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527 [2005]). Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default. However, in opposition, the respondents raised triable issues of fact with respect to, inter alia, the validity of the mortgage and the alleged usurious nature of the note (see Freitas v Geddes Sav. & Loan Assn., 63 NY2d 254, 262 [1984]; Abir v Malky, Inc., 59 AD3d 646, 649 [2009]; Sudit v Schapiro, 57 AD3d 968, 968-969 [2008]; Campaign v Barba, 23 AD3d 327 [2005]; Hort v Devine, 1 AD3d 266 [2003]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 26 Misc 3d 1239(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50465(U).]