Plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on his claims and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and on its counterclaims for breach of contract and for attorneys’ appeal, the First Department modified the decision and order to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unenforceable as a matter of law.”[3] Accordingly, said the Court, “plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment The PSA did not limit that obligation to circumstances in which a divorce settlement or judgment had

Among other things, an appearance could: preclude the entry of a default judgment by plaintiff; operate having a complaint dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) based on a plaintiff’s failure to seek a default judgment Subsequently, an order of reference and a judgment of foreclosure and sale was issued by the motion court was scheduled for the subject property, the borrower moved to vacate the order of reference and the judgment

The plaintiff commenced an action to recover a brokerage fee and moved for summary judgment arguing that The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment contending that: the agreement did not provide that the Court stated: Applying these principles here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment

Co., 221 A.D.3d 968 (2nd Dep’t 2023), an insurance agent was awarded summary judgment dismissing a complaint The trial court denied the broker’s motion for summary judgment, and it appealed. for insurance, reversed and stated: Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment

Foreclosing Residential Lender to ‘SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE ’” and “ The Second Department Denies Summary Judgment importance of the need for sufficient evidence when it comes to satisfying the burdens of a summary judgment The Zavolunov supreme court granted Lender’s motion for summary judgment and the borrower appealed. The Zavolunov Court also cautioned that a lender moving for summary judgment “must prove its allegations requirements of RPAPL 1304, it held that the supreme court should have denied the Lender’s summary judgment

In late 2018, plaintiff obtained judgments of foreclosure and sale in both actions and, following the referee sales, moved in each action for a deficiency judgment against Eliopoulos. Before either deficiency judgment could be rendered in plaintiff’s favor, in June 2020, Eliopoulos and At the time of the conveyance to GEL,” explained the Court, “plaintiff had already been awarded two judgments have ignored an information subpoena relating to her finances as to at least one of the deficiency judgments

Diane Wood, writing for herself and Judge Frank Easterbrook) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment The Union did not present enough evidence to survive summary judgment on that issue, and so we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”

Plaintiff moved for a declaratory judgment that the 2002 license agreement gave him and his successors ’s answer denying liability and asserting several affirmative defenses, plaintiff moved for summary judgment The motion court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding that the 2002 license agreement Division, First Department held that the motion court improperly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

After the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied by the motion court, it moved for reargument The motion court granted reargument and, upon reargument, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment

commenced a mortgage foreclosure action.[2] Upon the borrower’s default, the lender was awarded summary judgment and, thereafter, a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The borrower subsequently moved “pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the order of reference and the judgment

subsequent action under res judicata. [1] Under the doctrine, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment based upon the doctrine of res judicata. [14]  To prevail, the moving party must show: “(1) a final judgment are represented by a party to the action.” [18]  The party asserting the conclusive effect of a prior judgment Proceeding, and the FINRA panel’s final arbitration award,” defendant “demonstrated that there was a final judgment transactional approach to res judicata bars all claims arising from the same transaction once a final judgment

Following discovery, the parties brought motions for summary judgment , which resulted in another appeal appeal ( here ), the Court modified the motion court’s order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ to the Court’s decision examined below, the Court held that the motion court properly denied summary judgment days” of trial, “with 20 witnesses and more than 1000 documentary exhibits”, the lower court entered judgment