While the motion court granted the defendant’s motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, the quantum Overbay demanded a pay-off letter in order to “satisfy the judgment with the proceeds of a construction

title or a claim for damages for injury to, property and the person may be affected adversely by the judgment Plaintiff alleged that defendants defaulted under the Restatement Agreement and sought judgment for the

When the individual defendant failed to appear, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment. 

On summary judgment, Defendants again sought dismissal on the basis of champerty.

Thereafter, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to the $300,000 held Defendants opposed and cross-moved for, among other things, summary judgment on their fourth counterclaim In October 2018, the motion court, among other things, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment The court also granted other parts of defendants’ cross motion seeking summary judgment on their counterclaims b) dismissing defendants’ fourth counterclaim, and (2) granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment

defense to a lawsuit even though it may be relieved of the obligation to indemnify its insured from any judgment In Seaboard , the insurer brought an action against its insured seeking a declaratory judgment that it The Seaboard Court found that summary judgment in favor of the insurer relieving it of its duty to defend additional insured on a tenant’s insurance policy, brought an action in which it sought a declaratory judgment Pixley moved for summary judgment and the insurer cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing Pixley’

May 6, 2020, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the motion court’s grant of summary judgment In opposition to VRA’s motion for summary judgment, defendants argued that they had no liability under

Both parties moved for summary judgment – the buyers arguing that they “properly canceled the contract The Federico supreme court denied the buyers’ motion and granted summary judgment to the seller.  In modifying supreme court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of purchaser and granting summary judgment stated: On its renewed cross motion, Yat Yar failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment The plaintiff, on the other hand, made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter

Thereafter, Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that the action should be dismissed on the Fraud Defendants additionally moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to establish

NK’s Founders entered judgment against Frost in the amount of $62,380,605.50. But by the time the judgment was entered, Frost had allegedly disappeared. Chodos moved for summary judgment, arguing that the complaint should be dismissed because (i) the statute “Accordingly,” the Court held that “there issues of fact precluding summary judgment relating, among Under such circumstances, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment.

Following discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.

The Court held that the motion court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment,