21st Mtge. Corp. v. Osorio21st Mtge. Corp. v. Osorio
Helfand & Helfand, New York, NY (Brian R. Elliott and Diane Bradshaw of counsel), for appellant.
Borchert & LaSpina, P.C., Whitestone, NY (Helmut Borchert and Robert Frommer of counsel), for respondent Mesias Arias.
Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, LLP, New York, NY (Richard Wasserman, Brian H. Fischkin, and Ariana Acevedo of counsel), for respondent Mario Cueva.
DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, NY (Jacob E. Amir and Peter Dawson of counsel), for respondent Hudson City Savings Bank.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert L. Nahman, J.) entered May 18, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Hudson City Savings Bank which was pursuant to
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
In March 1998, nonparty Marion Napier executed a note in favor of Saxon National Mortgage Bankers, Ltd., which was secured by a mortgage on real property located in East Elmhurst (hereinafter the premises). Marion died in 2001. In March 2003, Bank One National Association (hereinafter Bank One), as assignee of the mortgage, commenced an action
In April 2015, the plaintiff, as the current owner and holder of the subject note and mortgage, commenced this action against Michelle Napier Osorio, Aaron Napier, and Mark Napier, as “Heir[s] to Marion Napier, Deceased,” Mesias Arias and Mario Cueva, the current owners of the premises, and Hudson City Savings Bank (hereinafter Hudson), among others, to foreclose the same mortgage. Hudson, Arias, and Cueva separately moved, inter alia, pursuant to
An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact. There is no evidence in the record of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year limitations period following the initiation of the prior foreclosure action (see Kashipour v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB, 144 AD3d at 987; Clayton Natl. v Guldi, 307 AD2d 982).
The parties’ remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or need not be reached in light of our determination.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court‘s determination to grant that branch of Hudson‘s motion which was pursuant to
DILLON, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court