Federal Deposit Insurance v. Schwartz
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- First New York Bank for Business v. DeMarco (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
- AXA Investment Managers UK Ltd. v. Endeavor Capital Management LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2012)
- Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v. Francisco Javier Herrera Navarro (N.Y. 2015)
- Hamlet at Willow Creek Development Co. v. Northeast Land Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Hamlet at Willow Creek Development Co. v. Northeast Land Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Gateway State Bank v. Winchester Builders, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Liquidation of Ideal Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Milliken & Co. v. Stewart (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- European American Bank & Trust Co. v. Boyd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Schwartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Meath v. Mishrick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Forte (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division.
We would only add that the appellant executrix has offered no proof of an evidentiary nature to contradict the evidence submitted by the respondent Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The opposition to respondent’s motion for summary judgment is merely a recitation of bare *704 allegations and speculation as to what discovery might reveal. In view of the detailed documentary support for respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and in light of the failure by the appellant either to advance facts rebutting respondent’s proof or raising triable issues of fact (Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728) or to seek a stay pending discovery of the facts that appellant claims are not within her knowledge, summary judgment was properly granted.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.