Case Name: VNB New York Corp., Respondent, v. Pisces Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-04-21
Citations: 138 A.D.3d 583
Docket Number: 
Parties: VNB New York Corp., Respondent, v Pisces Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
VNB New York Corp., Respondent, v Pisces Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
[28 NYS3d 612]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 4, 2015, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Pisces Properties, Inc. and Elizabeth Raghoo in the amount of $656,253.21 plus fees, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered January 15, 2014, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
In this commercial foreclosure action, plaintiff met its prima facie burden by producing the mortgage documents and undisputed evidence of default (see Red Tulip, LLC v Neiva, 44 AD3d 204, 209 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 741 [2008]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding their affirmative defenses to foreclosure. Defendants' reliance on statutes governing pleading and notice requirements and mandating settlement conferences in foreclosure actions on certain home loans was misplaced as those statutes were not applicable to this action (see Raia v Pototschnig, 127 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2015]).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.