Bratin v. Flushing Savings Bank

Full title: PETER BRATIN et al., Appellants, v. FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, Respondent

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1999

259 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

687 N.Y.S.2d 380

Opinion

March 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).

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.

Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.