Reich v. 559 St. Johns Pl, LLC

• Decision Date: 13 April 2022
• Docket Number: 2020–06617,Index No. 506861/19
• Citation: 204 A.D.3d 852,164 N.Y.S.3d 517 (Mem)
• Parties: Alexander REICH, respondent, v. 559 ST. JOHNS PL, LLC, appellant, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

204 A.D.3d 852
164 N.Y.S.3d 517 (Mem)

Alexander REICH, respondent,
v.
559 ST. JOHNS PL, LLC, appellant, et al., defendants.

2020–06617
Index No. 506861/19

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

Submitted—January 11, 2022
April 13, 2022

Chidi A. Eze (Abrams Fensterman, LLP, Brooklyn, NY [Andrea J. Caruso ], of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph J. Haspel, Middletown, NY, for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

204 A.D.3d 852

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant 559 St. Johns Pl, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mark I. Partnow, J.), dated August 3, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that defendant's motion

204 A.D.3d 853

pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In February 2015, the plaintiff commenced an action (hereinafter the prior action) against, among others, the defendant 559 St. Johns Pl, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), to foreclose a mortgage encumbering certain property owned by the defendant in Brooklyn. As is relevant to the appeal, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to make any payments under the note and mortgage. The defendant interposed an answer containing affirmative defenses, including lack of standing. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to dismiss the defendant's affirmative defenses, and for an order of reference. The defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing. By order dated October 10, 2018, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion.

...