Troncone v. Canelli
Decision Date | 21 February 1989 |
Citation | 147 A.D.2d 633,538 N.Y.S.2d 39 |
Parties | George TRONCONE, Respondent, v. Louis A. CANELLI, et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gerard I. Castelli, Eastchester, for appellants.
Joseph J.A. Tringali, Eastchester, for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, KUNZEMAN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has the right to prepay a certain mortgage indebtedness, the defendants appeal, (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated May 13, 1987, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same Court dated June 24, 1987, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.
ORDERED that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
"It has been settled law since the early 19th century that a mortgagor has no right to pay off his obligation prior to its stated maturity date in the absence of a prepayment clause in the mortgage or contrary statutory authority" (Matter of Arthur v. Burkich, 131 A.D.2d 105, 106, 520 N.Y.S.2d 638, citing Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 156 N.Y. 592, 599, 51 N.E. 309; Lisman v. Michigan Peninsular Car Co., 50 App.Div. 311, 315, 63 N.Y.S. 999; Annotation Construction and Effect as to Interest Due of Real Estate Mortgage Clause Authorizing Mortgagor to Prepay Principal Debt, 86 ALR3d 599, § 2[a] ). In the present case, the Supreme Court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff mortgagor, because the subject mortgage contains no clause which expressly authorizes prepayment, and prepayment is neither authorized nor required by statutory authority. The presence in the mortgage of the ambiguous phrase "unless sooner paid" does not provide a basis upon which to conclude that "the right to prepay is readily discernible from the mortgage instrument" (Matter of Arthur v. Burkich, supra 131 A.D.2d at 106, 520 N.Y.S.2d 638, citing Matter of Davlick Constr. Corp. v. Krohn Assoc., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skyles v. Burge
...effect in the majority of states, except where it has been modified by judicial decision or by statute. See Troncone v. Canelli, 147 A.D.2d 633, 538 N.Y.S.2d 39 (A.D. 2 Dept.1989); Arthur v. Burkich, 131 A.D.2d 105, 520 N.Y.S.2d 638 (A.D. 3 Dept.1987); Dugan v. Grzybowski, 165 Conn. 173, 33......
-
Russo Enterprises, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.
... ... off his obligation prior to its stated maturity date in the absence of a prepayment clause in the mortgage or contrary statutory authority" (Troncone v. Canelli, 147 A.D.2d 633, 538 N.Y.S.2d 39; Matter of Arthur v. Burkich, 131 A.D.2d 105, 520 N.Y.S.2d 638; Poughkeepsie Galleria Co. v. Aetna Life ... ...
-
Poughkeepsie Galleria Co. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
... ... his obligation prior to its stated maturity date in the absence of a prepayment clause in the mortgage or contrary statutory authority." (Troncone v. Canelli, 147 A.D.2d 633, 538 N.Y.S.2d 39.) No statutory authority exists which requires that a mortgagor in a nonresidential commercial loan ... ...