Brown v. Decaudin
| Decision Date | 17 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2013-08967, 2014-02105 |
| Citation | 129 A.D.3d 875,10 N.Y.S.3d 444 (Mem),2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05139 |
| Parties | David BROWN, respondent, v. Bruno DECAUDIN, also know as Bruno Y. Decaudin, et al., defendants, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Ohio Savings Bank, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
129 A.D.3d 875
10 N.Y.S.3d 444 (Mem)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05139
David BROWN, respondent
v.
Bruno DECAUDIN, also know as Bruno Y. Decaudin, et al., defendants
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Ohio Savings Bank, appellant.
2013-08967, 2014-02105
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 17, 2015.
Rajan Patel, Pearl River, N.Y., for appellant.
McCullough, Goldberger & Staudt, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Ruth F–L. Post of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to rescind a deed and discharge a certain mortgage based on fraudulent inducement, the defendant Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Ohio Savings Bank, appeals (1) from stated portions
of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.H.O.), dated July 30, 2013, which, inter alia, converted that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and converted the plaintiff's cross motion, inter alia, to strike its answer and to cancel and discharge the subject mortgage, to a cross motion for summary judgment canceling and discharging the subject mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501 (4), and thereupon denied the motion and granted the cross motion, and (2) from a judgment of the same court entered December 2, 2013, which, upon the order, canceled and discharged the subject mortgage and related mortgage assignments.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mangia Rest. Corp. v. Utica First Ins. Co.
...893 N.Y.S.2d 66 [2009] quoting Moutafis v. Osborne , 18 A.D.3d 723, 724, 795 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2d Dept. 2005] ; see Brown v. Decaudin , 129 A.D.3d 875, 10 N.Y.S.3d 444 [2d Dept. 2015] ).Further, again as in the instant case, the Court in the matter of Serrano v. County of Suffolk. 188 A.D.3d 93......
- Ayala v. Gonzalez