Davidson , 202 A.D.3d 880 (2nd Dep’t 2022), in reversing a judgment of foreclosure and sale and granting summary judgment to the borrowers, the Court stated that “ ontrary to the contention, the did not a defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time prior to the entry of a judgment The lender moved for summary judgment and to strike the borrower’s affirmative defense related to RPAPL On this basis, the borrower cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to

their answer, the sellers interposed various affirmative defenses in addition to counterclaims for a judgment The sellers subsequently brought a motion for summary judgment, maintaining that plaintiff was aware, Corcoran cross-moved for summary judgment, claiming that it did not owe a duty to plaintiff. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the sellers submitted an affidavit in which it was averred The Court held that “the sellers demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of

To establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff The Motion court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment and appeals followed. The [borrower] established [his] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on this ground ] also failed to meet its prima facie burden on those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment

May 4, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a final judgment The final judgment permanently enjoins defendant from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the The enforcement action and judgment highlights how affinity fraud often overlaps with traditional securities The judgment, which imposed permanent injunctions and disgorgement, reinforces several lessons: shared firm. ___________________________________ [1] The SEC’s litigation release announcing the entry of judgment

party is not named as a defendant in a foreclosure action “that party’s rights unaffected by the judgment In May of 2018, the Property was sold to the lender at public auction pursuant to a judgment of foreclosure In January 2020, Bennett moved to, inter alia , vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, set aside Contrary to MHL's contention, the doctrine of laches cannot be used to defeat an application to vacate a judgment Bennett never appeared but the lender failed to move for a default judgment against her.

Under the doctrine, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior By order and judgment entered September 15, 2021, the Supreme Court consolidated the petition and Lakeview The motion court concluded, among other things, that Sunny “fail to demonstrate his entitlement to judgment Sunny did not move for leave to renew or reargue, and he did not appeal from that order and judgment. In the order and judgment entered in that action, said the Court, “the Supreme Court, inter alia , dismissed

One year later, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment but did not first serve a notice to appoint Thereafter, plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted.  A clerk’s judgment was entered upon defendant’s failure to answer the complaint.  defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment. Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendants' motion to vacate the … judgment. 

On October 22, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment on both his claims Also on February 22, 2023, defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as his opposition The motion court granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment , dismissing plaintiff’s complaint The motion court also denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in its entirety. After completion of discovery, the parties moved for summary judgment; defendant argued that plaintiff

“‘A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against [it] on the The settlement agreement was approved by the Supreme Court by judgment dated August 26, 2020, and contained claims[ or] causes of action … of any nature whatsoever … arising at any time on or before entry of the [judgment claims[ or] causes of action … of any nature whatsoever … arising at any time on or before entry of the [judgment

financial contributions and later fraudulently transferred the project property to insiders, rendering ORRA judgment giving GGI every favorable inference[,] that ORRA ‘transferred the Property to insiders making ORRA judgment transferred the property to insiders, divesting the project of its principal asset and allegedly making ORRA judgment asset-stripping behavior to survive dismissal and pursue recovery from insiders who render entities judgment

The motion court granted RBLP’s motion for summary judgment as to Thibodeau’s liability for breach of contract and denied RBLP’s summary judgment as to RBLP’s causes of actions for tortious interference The motion court also denied Thibodeau’s cross motion for summary judgment for, among other things, breach contract cause of action,” the First Department found that the motion court “properly granted RBLP summary judgment court’s decision, the First Department turned to the denial of Thibodeau’s cross motion for summary judgment

Motion Court’s Decision and Order Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff sought summary judgment as to both liability and damages for its breach of contract cause of In opposition and in support of its own motion for summary judgment, defendants contended that plaintiff Consequently, the motion court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment