Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, appellant, v. Terence THOMAS, respondent, et al., defendants.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated March 27, 2007, which, inter alia, denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Terence Thomas, and to dismiss that defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (hereinafter Greenpoint), which is not a party to this appeal, loaned the defendant Terence Thomas the sum of $430,000. This loan was secured by two mortgages that Thomas duly executed and delivered to Greenpoint. The first mortgage, in the principal amount of $344,000, was assigned by Greenpoint to the plaintiff, Aurora Loan Services, LLC (hereinafter Aurora).
Aurora established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the first mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default (see U.S. Bank Trust N.A. Trustee v. Butti, 16 A.D.3d 408, 792 N.Y.S.2d 505; Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y. v. O'Kane, 308 A.D.2d 482, 764 N.Y.S.2d 635). In opposition, however, Thomas raised triable issues of fact concerning his affirmative defenses and counterclaims alleging fraud, bad faith, and a violation of General Business Law § 349, which precluded the granting of summary judgment to the plaintiff (see Popular Financial Servs. LLC v. Williams, 50 A.D.3d 660, 855 N.Y.S.2d 581; U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. TR U/S 6/01/98 [Home Equity Loan Trust 1998-2] v. Alvarez, 49 A.D.3d 711, 854 N.Y.S.2d 171).
Aurora's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: July 15, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)