NYC REH, Inc. v. Mizrahi
| Decision Date | 27 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020–05325, 2020–05333,Index No. 509955/18 |
| Citation | 204 A.D.3d 1023,165 N.Y.S.3d 369 (Mem) |
| Parties | NYC REH, INC., respondent, v. Joseph MIZRAHI, appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
204 A.D.3d 1023
165 N.Y.S.3d 369 (Mem)
NYC REH, INC., respondent,
v.
Joseph MIZRAHI, appellant, et al., defendants.
2020–05325, 2020–05333
Index No. 509955/18
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—February 24, 2022
April 27, 2022
Law Office of Alan J. Sasson, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Friedman Vartolo, LLP, New York, NY (Zachary Gold of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT J. MILLER, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joseph Mizrahi appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), both dated January 29, 2020. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of
the plaintiff's motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Joseph Mizrahi and for an order of reference, and denied the cross motion of the defendant Joseph Mizrahi, in effect, to vacate his default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer, and, thereupon, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The second order, insofar as appealed from, granted
that same relief to the plaintiff and referred the matter to a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage loan.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action in May 2018 against the defendant Joseph Mizrahi (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage encumbering real property located in Brooklyn. Prior to filing an answer in the action, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that he had not been validly served with the summons and complaint. Since the 120–day period within which to effect service pursuant to CPLR 306–b had not yet expired when the defendant moved to dismiss, the plaintiff re-served him with the summons and complaint, and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant thereafter failed to answer the complaint.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Stutman
...confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendant opposed the plaintiff's motion, and cross-moved 204 A.D.3d 1023 pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate the order dated October 5, 2015, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, on the ......
-
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. v. Barone
...proof of the facts constituting the cause of action, and proof of the defendant's default (see CPLR 3215[f] ; NYC REH, Inc. v. Mizrahi, 204 A.D.3d 1023, 165 N.Y.S.3d 369 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Diallo, 190 A.D.3d 959, 141 N.Y.S.3d 72 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. v. Barone
... ... defendant's default (see CPLR 3215[f]; NYC ... REH, Inc. v Mizrahi, 204 A.D.3d 1023; HSBC Bank USA, ... N.A. v Diallo, 190 A.D.3d 959). Contrary to ... ...
-
Bank of N.Y. v. DeJohn
...1008–1009, 129 N.Y.S.3d 146 [internal quotation marks omitted]).Here, the plaintiff made the required showing (see NYC REH, Inc. v. Mizrahi, 204 A.D.3d 1023, 165 N.Y.S.3d 369 ). In opposition to the motion, the defendant failed to show that there was no default or to demonstrate a reasonabl......