Gmac, LLC v. Ray, 110 A.D.3d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Gmac, LLC v. Ray, 110 A.D.3d 1030 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: DeMato v. Mallin (nyappdiv, 2015-03-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeMato v. Mallin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The Mallin defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action, as their own moving papers demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they should be estopped from relying on the certificate of abandonment issued by the Town (see GMAC, LLC v Ray, 110 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2013]; cf. BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP v Yucaipa Am.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Radow v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Since the petitioners Mildred Beck and Alan Rosenbloom did not file notices of appeal, the arguments presented on their behalf are not properly before this Court (see GMAC, LLC v Ray, 110 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2013]; Weinstein v Natalie Weinstein Design Assoc., Inc., 86 AD3d 641, 644 [2011]).
GMAC, LLC
v.
John Ray
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 30, 2013.
110 A.D.3d 1030
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant John Ray[*1031] appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated January 31, 2012, which denied his motion, made jointly with the defendant Jacqueline Ray, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are triable issues of fact requiring the denial of the appellant’s motion, made jointly with the defendant Jacqueline Ray, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see CPLR 3212; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). There are triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the plaintiff should be estopped from foreclosing on the subject mortgage because of allegedly misleading statements made to the appellant by the plaintiff s predecessor-in-interest upon which the appellant justifiably relied (see Carver Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of N.Y. v Glanzer, 186 AD2d 706, 707-708 [1992]; see also Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 NY2d 175, 184 [1982]).

To the extent that the appellant’s brief purports to also be submitted on behalf of the defendant Jacqueline Ray, we note that Jacqueline Ray is not an appellant, as no notice of appeal was filed on her behalf. Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.