U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Weinman

• Decision Date: 31 December 2014
• Docket Number: 2013-06394, 2014-00467, 2014-06146
• Citation: 2 N.Y.S.3d 128,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 09119,123 A.D.3d 1108
• Parties: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., respondent, v. Caroline Waloski WEINMAN, appellant, et al., defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

123 A.D.3d 1108
2 N.Y.S.3d 128
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 09119

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., respondent
v.
Caroline Waloski WEINMAN, appellant, et al., defendant.

2013-06394, 2014-00467, 2014-06146

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

Dec. 31, 2014.

2 N.Y.S.3d 129

Amed Marzano & Sediva PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Naved Amed and Alexander Sediva of counsel; Dana Cimera on the brief), for appellant.

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Nicole E. Schiavo, and Chava Brandriss of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

123 A.D.3d 1108

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Caroline Waloski Weinman appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated March 29, 2013, (2) stated portions of an order of the same court dated June 11, 2013, (3) so much of an order of the same court dated September 13, 2013, as, after a framed-issue hearing on the issue of whether the plaintiff timely and properly served her with a notice of default in payment of the subject mortgage obligation, as required by RPAPL 1304, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing all counterclaims and affirmative defenses and for the appointment of a referee to compute the amount owed to the plaintiff, and denied those branches of her cross motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 3126

2 N.Y.S.3d 130

to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders dated March 29, 2013, and June 11, 2013, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as those orders were superseded by the order dated September 13, 2013 (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cange, 96 A.D.3d 825, 947 N.Y.S.2d 522 ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated September 13, 2013, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the affirmative defense alleging that it lacked standing, and for the appointment of a referee, and substituting therefor a provision denying those

123 A.D.3d 1109

branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without...