`FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09m2015 12:16 P l
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO.
`
`61
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`
`
` V3
`fiX NO.
`0354' 0/20'
`INDEX NO. 035410/2012
`
` O9/’
`
` VYSCEF:
`
`
`
` *3
`
`
`
`
`6/20'
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2015
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT
`R-3
`R—3
`
`
`
`i RCG Longview II LP v Lampeas Family Limited Partnership No 7 I | New York Law Jo...
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`NOT FOR REPRINT
`
` Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
`
`Page printed from: New York Law Journal
`
`RCG Longview II LP v. Lampeas Family
`Limited Partnership No. 7
`
`QUEENS COUNTY
`Real Property
`
`New York Law Journal
`
`February 3, 2010
`
`Justice Siegal
`
`Read the Full-Text Opinion
`
`IN THIS foreclosure action, plaintiff moved for summary judgment against all defendant.
`Defendant Lampeas LP cross-moved to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence at trial for
`failure to serve a bill of particulars. Lampeas executed several notes and mortgages, which
`were later assigned to plaintiff, who alleged Lampeas failed to make the required payments
`due. The court found plaintiff submitted copies of the notes, mortgages, assignments and
`guaranty, finding Lampeas failed to make the required payments due establishing plaintiff's
`prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. It stated none of the affirmative defenses,
`each alleged in single-sentence, conclusory fashion had any merit. The court found
`defendants offered no proof in support of their asserted defenses, and merely argued
`plaintiff failed to respond to a demand for a bill of particulars. It noted plaintiff submitted proof
`defendants extended the response time to the demand to Aug. 14, 2009, while plaintiff's
`motion for summary judgment was made on Aug. 7. The court stated a motion for summary
`judgment stayed all discovery and could not be denied solely on the unsupported
`speculative claims of a borrower that discovery might turn up something helpful. Thus,
`plaintiff's motion was granted.
`
`Copyright 2015. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
`
`http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/printerfriendly/id=1202441884487
`
`9/14/2015
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
