Southold Sav. Bank v. Cutino
| Decision Date | 03 March 1986 |
| Citation | 499 N.Y.S.2d 169,118 A.D.2d 555 |
| Parties | SOUTHOLD SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. Michael J. CUTINO, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Pincus, Solomon & Rosenblum, Levittown (Albert R. Pincus, of counsel), for appellant.
Gill & Wourgola, Southampton (Martin F. Keane, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and MANGANO, BRACKEN and NIEHOFF, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the defendant Michael J. Cutino appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated April 26, 1984, which, inter alia, dismissed his defenses of estoppel and waiver.
Order affirmed, with costs.
The uncontroverted facts clearly refute the defendant mortgagor's assertion that the plaintiff mortgagee waived its right to timely payments of principal and interest and its option to accelerate the entire indebtedness in the event that such payments were not timely made. Moreover, it cannot be said that the mortgagee bank was estopped from requiring strict adherence to the terms of the mortgage or from maintaining this foreclosure action. Although the bank did accommodate the mortgagor by accepting late installment payments for a period of time, the bank repeatedly communicated to the mortgagor in unequivocal terms that his account was in arrears and that it would exercise its option to accelerate unless timely payment was made. Thus, the mortgagor could not have reasonably believed that the mortgagee bank would continue to permit him to remain in arrears and to tender late payments, nor could he have reasonably believed that the bank had waived its right to enforce the acceleration clause and, thereafter, to foreclose (see, Mariash v. Bastianich, 88 A.D.2d 829, 452 N.Y.S.2d 190, appeal dismissed, 58 N.Y.2d 823; Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y. v. Dooley, 84 A.D.2d 804, 444 N.Y.S.2d 148; Bowers v. Zaimes, 59 A.D.2d 803, 398 N.Y.S.2d 766; Ford v. Waxman, 50 A.D.2d 585, 375 N.Y.S.2d 145).
We have considered the remaining contentions raised on this appeal and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v. Osborne
...Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 N.Y.2d 175, 184, 451 N.Y.S.2d 663, 436 N.E.2d 1265; cf. Southold Sav. Bank v. Cutino, 118 A.D.2d 555, 499 N.Y.S.2d 169). Moreover, the mortgage documents relating to the first mortgage contain a clause barring oral waivers ( see City of......
-
Premier Ford NY, Inc. v. Ryan
...that the plaintiffs were voluntarily relinquishing their right to enforce the stipulation's terms (see Southold Sav. Bank v. Cutino, 118 A.D.2d 555, 556, 499 N.Y.S.2d 169 ; Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y. v. Dooley, 84 A.D.2d 804, 805, 444 N.Y.S.2d 148 ; Bowers v. Zaimes, 59 A.D.2d 803, 804, 398 N.Y......
-
Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Elizer
...notice and an opportunity to cure any default (see Mader v. Mader, 101 A.D.2d 881, 476 N.Y.S.2d 195 ; cf. Southold Sav. Bank v. Cutino, 118 A.D.2d 555, 499 N.Y.S.2d 169 ; see generally Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 N.Y.2d 175, 185, 451 N.Y.S.2d 663, 436 N.E.2d 1265 ......
-
Prudential Home Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Cermele
...prima facie defense of estoppel (see, BWA Corp. v. Alltrans Express U.S.A., 112 A.D.2d 850, 853, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1; Southold Sav. Bank v. Cutino, 118 A.D.2d 555, 499 N.Y.S.2d 169). Thus, the plaintiff was not estopped from maintaining the foreclosure We have reviewed the defendants' remaining ......