lender commenced action to foreclose the mortgage (the “First Action”) at which the debt was deemed accelerated The acceleration commenced the running of the statute of limitations.   Lender moved for summary judgment (which was granted) and borrower cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing Dorsin Court noted that the Second Action was commenced more than 6 years after the underlying debt was accelerated

Upon completion of discovery, the Belmont Defendants moved for summary judgment. The motion court granted in part and denied in part the Belmont Defendants’ motion for summary judgment In denying summary judgment as to, inter alia , the fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that it made such a Giordano moved to dismiss and for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s fraud claim against him.

Plaintiff was subsequently granted leave to enter a default judgment against defendant, and, after an inquest on the issue of damages, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Thereafter, defendant moved (a) to vacate the judgment, arguing, among other things, lack of personal Pursuant to CPLR § 5015(a)(4), “ he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from just, on motion of any interested person … upon the ground of … lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment

to a good faith purchaser” a court can exercise its “inherent power over a sale made pursuant to its judgment CPLR 2003 provides that “ t any time within one year after a sale made pursuant to a judgment or order Supreme court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to which the condominium unit was sold shows that the plaintiff failed to disclose the existence of the senior mortgage in the complaint, the judgment

Lender’s motion for a default judgment and order of reference was granted and the resulting order was After a judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered on December 17, 2016, borrower moved “to toll the seven years elapsed between the entry of the order of reference and the time the plaintiff moved for a judgment the date of entry of the order of reference, until September 21, 2016, when the plaintiff moved for a judgment

prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for a judgment

moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment allegations were sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss and, alternatively, the motion for summary judgment

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment Thus, supreme court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted, in part, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on its sole cause of action (breach of contract). 

Supreme court granted lender’s motion for summary judgment, to strike borrower’s answer and for an order Thereafter, supreme court granted lender’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment lender’s evidentiary failures, the Court stated: In support of its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment Lender’s motion for summary judgment was granted and borrower’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint Thereafter, borrower moved to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale

part of plaintiff’s motion, which plaintiff made before taking depositions, seeking “partial summary judgment plaintiff moved for leave to renew its prior motion insofar as the prior motion sought partial summary judgment Plaintiff could have obtained the information prior to moving for summary judgment: “‘nothing prevented from conducting discovery, including depositions, prior to moving for summary judgment.’” 12 As such facts could have been obtained by taking the depositions before filing the motion for partial summary judgment

Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the suit was barred Following party depositions, defendants moved for renewal of their prior motion for summary judgment. renewal reaffirmed its prior ruling that there were issues of fact preventing the grant of summary judgment the court noted that the parties’ conflicting versions of the events precluded the grant of summary judgment may be drawn, courts will often find a question of fact sufficient to preclude the grant of summary judgment

Following discovery, the parties moved for summary judgment. The motion court granted plaintiffs’ motion (1) on their first cause of action for declaratory judgment The motion court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in so far as dismissing plaintiffs’