New York, NY
Litigation Lawyer at New York, NY
Practice Areas: Litigation, Foreclosure ... +3 more
OUTCOME: See https://www.hinshawlaw.com/professionals-ellis-oster.html#RepresentativeMatters
A list of my appellate wins, with summaries, from 2019 to present is provided in my biography page on my firm’s website: https://www.hinshawlaw.com/professionals-ellis-oster.html#RepresentativeMatters ...
OUTCOME: Appellate Division ordered that the trial court’s order be reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion to vacate a stay of the action and for leave to enter a default judgment and an order of reference was granted.
Obtained rare reversal of a trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate stay and for a default judgment in favor of the mortgagee.
OUTCOME: Appellate court affirms trial court, finds summary judgment properly granted in favor of foreclosing plaintiff on the issue of standing and that RPAPL 1304 was inapplicable.
Bank had standing to commence foreclosure action against defendant because bank established physical possession of original note, properly endorsed, at time action was commenced by attaching a copy of ... same to its complaint and that case did not involve a “home loan” and therefore not required to comply with the statutory notice provisions of RPAPL 1304; bank was entitled to summary judgment in action because bank submitted mortgage, note, and evidence of default, and in opposition and cross-motion, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact or basis to dismiss action pursuant to CPLR 3126 with respect to plaintiff's response to the defendant's request to admit.
OUTCOME: Appellate court affirms trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion to vacate foreclosure judgment.
Appellate court affirmed denial of borrowers’ motion that sought pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, ... and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied those branches of their motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale upon the ground of excusable default, and pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as abandoned.
OUTCOME: Appellate court affirms trial court, finds summary judgment properly granted in favor of foreclosing plaintiff on the issue of standing.
Bank had standing to commence foreclosure action against borrowers because bank had physical possession of original note, properly endorsed, at time action was commenced; bank was entitled to summary j ... udgment in action because bank submitted mortgage, note, and affidavit of borrowers' default, and borrowers did not raise triable issue of fact.
OUTCOME: Defendant's appeal dismissed.
Appeal by borrower in foreclosure action dismissed by the appellate court.
OUTCOME: Court grants leave to reargue/renew, and grants summary judgment in favor of foreclosing plaintiff.
Trial court grants foreclosing plaintiff's motion to reargue/renew, where prior summary judgment motion was denied due to original note being lost. Court finds on reargument/renewal that the plaintiff ... presented its prima facie element to judgment on its foreclosure claim despite original note being lost.
OUTCOME: Declaratory judgment was entered for respondents declaring that Gates, N.Y., Code § 190-22[E] was constitutional as it was not restraint of freedom of speech under First Amendment.
Successfully persuaded the Appellate Division to affirm a judgment dismissing Article 78 proceeding against a town’s zoning board of appeals. Additionally, the judgment was modifed to expressly declare ... that the town’s commercial sign law was constitutional. This decision involved the First Amendment and commercial speech, and was cited favorably in 2020 by the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court.
OUTCOME: Appellate court reverses trial court, defendant's dismissal motion denied.
Appellate court found that dismissals of plaintiff's prior actions without prejudice premised on lack of standing were not dismissals on the merits for res judicata purpose, and despite the purportedly ... invalid assignment of the note to the foreclosing plaintiff, the plaintiff may nevertheless establish its standing by demonstrating that the note was in its possession or that it was delivered prior to the commencement of this current action.
OUTCOME: Trial court grants dismissal motion in favor of law firm.
Trial court found that plaintiff failed to state a valid cause of action sounding in fraud against law firm defendant.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
