Morreale v. Morreale

• Decision Date: 24 May 2011
• Citation: 84 A.D.3d 1187,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04433,923 N.Y.S.2d 876
• Parties: Gilda MORREALE, plaintiff,v.Alan MORREALE, etc., appellant, et al., defendants;William Esposito, et al., intervenors-respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

84 A.D.3d 1187

923 N.Y.S.2d 876

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04433

Gilda MORREALE, plaintiff,

v.Alan MORREALE, etc., appellant, et al., defendants;William Esposito, et al., intervenors-respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 24, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAzam & Hertz, LLP, Jackson Heights, N.Y. (Gerald M. Hertz of counsel), for appellant.Wilk Auslander, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Pamela L. Kleinberg of counsel), for intervenors-respondents.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the defendant Alan Morreale appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated July 8, 2010, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court dated March 31, 2010, as stayed the action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on real property allegedly owned by the defendant Alan Morreale (hereinafter the defendant). However, the defendant's ownership of the subject real property was simultaneously contested in a related Surrogate's Court proceeding involving some of the same parties. The Supreme Court stayed the action pending resolution of the related Surrogate's Court proceeding. Prior to the resolution of the Surrogate's Court proceeding, the defendant moved, in effect, to vacate the stay of the foreclosure action. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. We affirm.

“Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 2201). “[A] court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications, application of proof and potential waste of judicial resources” ( Zonghetti v. Jeromack, 150 A.D.2d 561, 563, 541 N.Y.S.2d 235; see Matter of Tenenbaum, 81 A.D.3d 738, 739, 916 N.Y.S.2d 205). Under the circumstances of this case, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to deny the defendant's motion, in effect, to vacate the stay of the foreclosure action ( see CPLR 2201; Matter of Tenenbaum, 81 A.D.3d at 739, 916 N.Y.S.2d 205; El Greco Inc. v. Cohn, 139 A.D.2d 615, 616–617, 527 N.Y.S.2d 256; see also Peluso v. Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 A.D.3d 802, 803, 910 N.Y.S.2d 378; Zonghetti v. Jeromack, 150 A.D.2d at 563, 541 N.Y.S.2d 235; cf. Winters Bros. Recycling Corp. v. H.B. Millwork, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 942, 942–943, 900...