Source: http://kirschenbaumesq.com/article/-prudential-home-mortg-co-inc-v-cermele-226-ad2d-357-640-nys2d-254-nyad-2-dept-apr-01-1996-no-95-00568
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:15:15+00:00

Document:
Mario CERMELE, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
fact on mortgagors' estoppel defense.
demonstrate absence of any material issues of fact.
material issues of fact which require trial.
to preclude entry of summary judgment in mortgage foreclosure action.
in their position in reliance on agent's alleged statements.
Douglas Tischler, of counsel), for appellant.
Before COPERTINO, J.P., and PIZZUTO, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ.
Cermele and Valerie Cermele and to appoint a referee pursuant to RPAPL 1321.
evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v.
Express U.S.A., 112 A.D.2d 850, 853, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1; Southold Sav. Bank v.
estopped from maintaining the foreclosure action.
PRUDENTIAL HOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., etc., Appellant,v.Mario CERMELE, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Mortgagee sued to foreclose, and mortgagors asserted estoppel defense. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, Donovan, J., entered order denying mortgagee's motion for summary judgment, and mortgagee appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that mortgagors' bare and unsubstantiated assertions regarding oral promise allegedly made by mortgagee's employee to reinstate mortgage were not sufficient to raise any genuine issues of material fact on mortgagors' estoppel defense.
Party moving for summary judgment must make prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as matter of law, by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate absence of any material issues of fact.
Once party moving for summary judgment has made prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment, burden shifts to party opposing motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish existence of material issues of fact which require trial.
Mortgagors' bare and unsubstantiated assertions that mortgagee's employee had orally agreed to reinstate their mortgage were not sufficient, either by themselves or in conjunction with mortgagors' written offer to pay arrears, to raise any genuine issue of material fact on estoppel claim raised by mortgagors to preclude entry of summary judgment in mortgage foreclosure action.
When mortgagor is attempting to assert estoppel against mortgagee who has instituted foreclosure action, mortgagor must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require trial of that defense; mere conclusions, expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are not sufficient.
Mortgagee was not estopped from foreclosing on mortgagors' long-overdue mortgage, without regard to sufficiency of mortgagors' bare and unsubstantiated assertions that mortgagee's employee had orally agreed to reinstate mortgage, given complete lack of evidence that mortgagors had made any prejudicial change in their position in reliance on agent's alleged statements. **255 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Kenneth Kirschenbaum and Douglas Tischler, of counsel), for appellant.
Marcus, Rippa & Gould, White Plains (Vincent R. Rippa, of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to foreclose on a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 15, 1994, as denied the branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Mario Cermele and Valerie Cermele and to appoint a referee pursuant to RPAPL 1321.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Mario Cermele and Valerie Cermele and to appoint a referee pursuant to RPAPL 1321 are granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
 The proponent of a summary judgment motion "must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Once the movant has demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718; Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra ).
 The plaintiff mortgagee made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. However, contrary to the defendants' contention, their proof, consisting of bare unsubstantiated contentions that the plaintiff's employee orally agreed to reinstate their mortgage, and the defendants' letter to the plaintiff's attorneys wherein the defendants made an offer to pay arrears, is insufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff entered into a modification agreement with the defendants so as to estop the plaintiff from foreclosing on the long-**256 overdue mortgage. When a mortgagor is attempting to assert estoppel against a mortgagee who has instituted a foreclosure the mortgagor must produce "evidentiary proof in admissible form * * * sufficient to require a trial [of that defense] * * * mere conclusions, expressions of hope, unsubstantiated *358 allegations or assertions are insufficient" (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718, supra; State Bank of Albany v. Fioravanti, 51 N.Y.2d 638, 647, 435 N.Y.S.2d 947, 417 N.E.2d 60). Nor have the defendants alleged any prejudicial change in their position in reliance upon the plaintiff's conduct so as to sustain a prima facie defense of estoppel (see, BWA Corp. v. Alltrans Express U.S.A., 112 A.D.2d 850, 853, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1; Southold Sav. Bank v. Cutino, 118 A.D.2d 555, 499 N.Y.S.2d 169). Thus, the plaintiff was not estopped from maintaining the foreclosure action.
We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.