Case Law HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Schneps

HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Schneps

Document Cited Authorities (7) Cited in (5) Related

Barry Schneps, West Hempstead, NY, appellant pro se and for appellant Chaya Schneps.

Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, New York, NY (Lijue T. Philip of counsel), for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Barry Schneps and Chaya Schneps appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), both dated September 10, 2019. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Barry Schneps, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Chaya Schneps, and for an order of reference, and denied that branch of those defendantscross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The second order, insofar as appealed from, granted the same relief to the plaintiff, denied the same relief to those defendants, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.

ORDERED that the first order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Barry Schneps and for an order of reference, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Barry Schneps and Chaya Schneps which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Barry Schneps, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the first order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and so much of the second order as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Barry Schneps and for an order of reference, denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Barry Schneps and Chaya Schneps which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Barry Schneps, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff is vacated; and it is further, ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the second order as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Barry Schneps and for an order of reference, denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Barry Schneps and Chaya Schneps which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Barry Schneps, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination on the appeal from the first order; and it is further,

ORDERED that the second order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

On February 9, 2005, the defendant Barry Schneps (hereinafter Barry) and the defendant Chaya Schneps (hereinafter Chaya) executed a note in favor of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (hereinafter GreenPoint), in the sum of $387,000, which was secured by a mortgage on certain property located in West Hempstead. On May 6, 2016, the plaintiff, GreenPoint's successor in interest, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage against, among others, Barry and Chaya (hereinafter together the defendants). Barry submitted an answer generally denying the allegations...

3 cases
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2022
People v. Barnes
"..."
Document | New York Supreme Court – 2022
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC v. Chan
"...by including information concerning the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy and in military service]; HSBC Bank USA v. Schneps , 210 A.D.3d 748, 178 N.Y.S.3d 166 [November 9, 2022; 2d Dept] [Plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL § 1304 by including additional notices sent in the same envelope ..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2022
Gutierrez v. Bactolac Pharm., Inc.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2022
People v. Barnes
"..."
Document | New York Supreme Court – 2022
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC v. Chan
"...by including information concerning the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy and in military service]; HSBC Bank USA v. Schneps , 210 A.D.3d 748, 178 N.Y.S.3d 166 [November 9, 2022; 2d Dept] [Plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL § 1304 by including additional notices sent in the same envelope ..."
Document | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division – 2022
Gutierrez v. Bactolac Pharm., Inc.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex