Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Under the facts of this case the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff's contention that the defendant was not an authorized lender on a reverse mortgage pursuant to Real Property Law § 280-a and Banking Law §§ 6-h and 14 was improperly raised for the first time in her reply papers (see Martin v. New York
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.