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.
NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee, et al., appellants, v. 2388 Nostrand Corp., respondent, et al., defendants.
Submitted-December 3, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 3, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaim of the defendant 2388 Nostrand Corp., to amend the caption to name the plaintiffs as NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee and the Bank of New York, as Collateral Agent and Custodian for the NYCTL 1998-2 Trust, to strike John Does as party defendants, and to appoint a referee to compute the total sums due and owing to the plaintiffs.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaim of the defendant 2388 Nostrand Corp., to amend the caption to name the plaintiffs as NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee and the Bank of New York, as Collateral Agent and Custodian for the NYCTL 1998-2 Trust, to strike John Does as party defendants, and to appoint a referee to compute the total sums due and owing to the plaintiffs is granted, and the caption is amended accordingly.
In this action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the respondent did not pay the outstanding balance due under the lien (see NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Orit Diagnostic Ctr., Inc., 19 AD3d 668). In opposition, the respondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact rebutting the plaintiffs' showing or as to the merit of its affirmative defenses or its counterclaim (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., Natl. Assn. v Perez, 41 AD3d 590; Trans World Grocers v. Sultana Crackers, 257 A.D.2d 616, 617; Home Sav. of Am. v. Isaacson, 240 A.D.2d 633). Similarly, the plaintiffs demonstrated their entitlement to relief on the remaining branches of their motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion in its entirety.
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2009-05269 (Index No. 3521 /07)
Decided: January 05, 2010
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)