Summary
affirming the grant of summary judgment rejecting the debtor's Section 489 defense in a foreclosure action on the grounds that the mortgage was acquired "as a sound and legitimate business investment" and foreclosure proceedings were not instituted until five months after the assignment
Summary of this case from Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la NacionOpinion
June 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff established that it acquired the subject mortgage as a sound and legitimate business investment by an assignment which was supported by valuable and substantial consideration. Moreover, the plaintiff did not seek to foreclose until approximately five months after the assignment, and neither the appellant nor any other party sought to satisfy the underlying debt in the interim. Under these circumstances, the appellant's vague and speculative assertion that the assignment violated the prohibition against champerty set forth in Judiciary Law § 489 Jud. was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, and the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment ( see, e.g., Grid Realty Corp. v. Gialousakis, 129 A.D.2d 768; Limpar Realty Corp. v. Uswiss Realty Holding, 112 A.D.2d 834; 1015 Gerard Realty Corp. v. A S Improvements Corp., 91 A.D.2d 927; see also, Fairchild Hiller Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 325).
Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.