BRATIN v. FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Peter BRATIN, et al., appellants, v. FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, respondent.

Decided: March 08, 1999

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN and ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Stuart D. Wechsler of counsel), for appellants. Vincent F. Nicolosi, Bayside, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to, inter alia, recover damages for violation of Real Property Law § 275, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated January 5, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the provision in their mortgage rider with the defendant requiring them to pay a reasonable attorney's fee for the preparation of a satisfaction of mortgage is not a violation of Real Property Law § 275. In addition, we find no conduct on the part of the defendant which can be considered a deceptive business practice in violation of General Business Law § 349 et seq.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law