Cent. Mortg. Co. v. McClelland
| Decision Date | 30 July 2014 |
| Citation | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05503,991 N.Y.S.2d 87,119 A.D.3d 885 |
| Parties | CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, respondent, v. Vincent McCLELLAND, et al., appellants, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Hanna & Vlahakis, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Derrick Hanna of counsel), for appellants.
Berkman, Henoch, Peterson, Peddy & Fenchel, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Nicole L. Milone and Alan J. Waintraub of counsel), for respondent.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Vincent McClelland and Denise McClelland appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated February 11, 2013, as granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and reargue and, upon renewal and reargument, in effect, vacated so much of an order of the same court dated September 6, 2012, as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and granted that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and thereupon, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them and denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order dated February 11, 2013, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
This action to foreclose a mortgage was commenced in June 2010 against, among others, the defendants Vincent McClelland and Denise McClelland (hereinafter together the appellants). In January 2012 the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint, and the appellants cross-moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing. In an order dated September 6, 2012, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted that branch of the appellants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing.
In October 2012, the plaintiff moved for leave to renew and reargue its motion and its opposition to the appellants' cross motion. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and reargue and, upon renewal and reargument, in effect, vacated so much of the order dated September 6, 2012, as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants, and granted that branch of the appellants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PennyMac, Corp. v. Darren DiPrima
...have merit (see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Chow Ming Tung, 126 A.D.3d 841, 7 N.Y.S.3d 147 [2d Dept.2015] ; Central Mtge. Co. v. McClelland, 119 A.D.3d 885, 991 N.Y.S.2d 87 [2d Dept.2014] ; Bank of New York v. McCall, 116 A.D.3d 993, 985 N.Y.S.2d 255 [2d Dept.2014] ; Fairmont Capital, LLC v. Lani......
-
JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Condello
...and RPAPL § 1321 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ali , 122 A.D.3d 726, 995 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2d Dept. 2014] ; Central Mtge. Co. v. McClelland , 119 A.D.3d 885, 991 N.Y.S.2d 87 [2d Dept. 2014]; Peak Fin. Partners, Inc. v. Brook , 119 A.D.3d 539, 987 N.Y.S.2d 916 [2d Dept. 2014]; Plaza Equiti es, LLC......
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...the relevant facts or misapplied a controlling principle of law (see CPLR 2221[d] ; Central Mtge. 129 A.D.3d 892Co. v. McClelland, 119 A.D.3d 885, 886, 991 N.Y.S.2d 87 ). The Graves Amendment provides, generally, that the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for p......
-
Gezelter v. Pecora, 2014-09397
...Arias v. Tiao, 123 A.D.3d at 857, 1 N.Y.S.3d 133 ; Berish v. Vasquez, 121 A.D.3d 634, 635, 993 N.Y.S.2d 567 ; Bullock v. Calabretta, 119 A.D.3d at 885, 989 N.Y.S.2d 862 ; Todd v. Godek, 71 A.D.3d at 873, 895 N.Y.S.2d 861 ). The defendant testified at his deposition that he never observed th......