Case Name: Dime Savings Bank of New York, F.S.B. v. Peter Z. Wu et al.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1994-04-12
Citations: 34 Conn. App. 901
Docket Number: 12130
Parties: Dime Savings Bank of New York, F.S.B. v. Peter Z. Wu et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 901–902

Head Matter:
Dime Savings Bank of New York, F.S.B. v. Peter Z. Wu et al.
(12130)
Landau, Schaller and Cretella, Js.
Submitted on briefs February 28
decision released April 12, 1994
Paul L. Bollo, filed a brief for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
Robert G. Golger, filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this foreclosure action, the reliance by the defendants Peter Z. Wu and Judy M. Wu (defendants) on the case of Cummings & Lockwood v. Gray, 26 Conn. App. 293, 600 A.2d 1040 (1991), for the proposition that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on both the complaint and the counterclaim is misplaced.
In Cummings & Lockwood, the motion for summary judgment was specifically directed to the complaint while here, the plaintiff made a general motion for summary judgment which allowed the court also to resolve the issue of the counterclaim which it properly did.
We have also fully reviewed the record and briefs as to the other claims of the defendants and find them to be without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.