Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dulgeroff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Apr 5, 2016

717 382451/09

Versions:138 A.D.3d 419

29 N.Y.S.3d 291

2016 NY Slip Op 02573

Lincoln “shortName” as “Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dulgeroff” for the first main case. The OCR shows a case beginning on page 419 regarding Citimortgage, Inc. and West Fork Capital Equities, LLC. The previous page (419 top) shows the end of “People v Fiallo” and the concurrence for that case. Per instructions for multi-opinion documents, I will convert the main opinion starting with “Citimortgage, Inc., Respondent, v George Dulgeroff...“. The second page (420) shows the end of the Citimortgage case and the beginning of “People v Julius Brown“, “James Caminero v Go Airborne, LLC“, and “People v Devin T. Burley“. I will focus on Citimortgage as the main opinion to convert. Wait, the prompt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” In this document: - Top of page 419: End of People v Fiallo. (Skip) - Middle of 419: Citimortgage, Inc. v George Dulgeroff. This is a full case. - Top of 420: End of Citimortgage. - Middle of 420: The People v Julius Brown (Short memorandum opinion). - Middle of 420: James Caminero v Go Airborne, LLC (Full order/opinion). - Bottom of 420: The People v Devin T. Burley (Starts). The instructions say “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, in these reporter formats, these are a series of memorandum decisions. I will provide the HTML for the first full case that starts in the document: Citimortgage, Inc. v George Dulgeroff. Actually, looking at the layout, these are sequential entries in the Appellate Division reports. I will convert the Citimortgage case. Case 1: Citimortgage, Inc. v George Dulgeroff. Docket: None provided other than citation and date. Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department (inferred from “1st Dept“). Date: August 13, 2014 (Order entered date). Reporter date is implicit. Citation: 29 NYS3d 291 Let‘s refine: Case name: Citimortgage, Inc. v George Dulgeroff. Short name: Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dulgeroff. Citation: 29 NYS3d 291 Wait, the citation [29 NYS3d 291] appears at the end of the caption. Page 419: ...[Citimortgage case content]... Page 420: ...[Citimortgage case ends]... The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” I will convert the Citimortgage case. Citations to check: - Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v Coutsodontis, 111 AD3d 483, 486 [1st Dept 2013] - Singer v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 97 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1983] - CPLR 6501 - 2386 Creston Ave. Realty, LLC v M-P-M Mgt. Corp., 58 AD3d 158, 161 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 716 [2009] - Westchester Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v H.E.W. Constr. Corp., 29 AD2d 670 [2d Dept 1968], lv denied 21 NY2d 646 [1968] - Martinez v Estate of Carney, 129 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2015] - Amalgamated Bank v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 25 NY3d 1098 [2015] Metadata: Court: N.Y. App. Div. (1st Dept) Case Name: CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Respondent, v GEORGE DULGEROFF et al., Defendants, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER SOUTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. WEST FORK CAPITAL EQUITIES, LLC, Nonparty Appellant. Short Name: Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dulgeroff Citation: 29 NYS3d 291 Date: 2014-08-13 (Order date cited in text) -> Actually, the decision date isn‘t explicitly at the top. The “Order... entered August 13, 2014” is what is being reviewed. The reporter usually indicates the term. The concur list follows the first case. Let‘s look at the concur for the first case. “Concur —Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.” appears at the start of page 420. This indicates the Citimortgage opinion ends there. Wait, looking at the layout on 420, “Concur —Mazzarelli... JJ.” appears after “undermines any claim of injustice.” Then there is a horizontal line. Then “The People of the State of New York... Julius Brown“. Then “James Caminero...“. I will process the Citimortgage case as the main opinion. Structure:

midpage-case-info

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. ...

Order, Supreme Court...

... ...

...

Wait, the signature/concur is: Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ. I will use the `midpage-signature` block for the judges. Page numbering: Reporter page 419. Reporter page 420. Citations: - People v Fiallo (partial at top) - skip. - Citimortgage case: - Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v Coutsodontis, 111 AD3d 483, 486 [1st Dept 2013] - Singer v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 97 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1983] - CPLR 6501 - 2386 Creston Ave. Realty, LLC v M-P-M Mgt. Corp., 58 AD3d 158, 161 [1st Dept 2008] - 11 NY3d 716 [2009] (subsequent history) - Westchester Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v H.E.W. Constr. Corp., 29 AD2d 670 [2d Dept 1968] - 21 NY2d 646 [1968] (subsequent history) - Martinez v Estate of Carney, 129 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2015] - Amalgamated Bank v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 25 NY3d 1098 [2015] Law Citations: - CPLR 6501 -> N.Y. C.P.L.R. 6501 Note: The OCR for Citimortgage has “George Dulgeroff Citimortgage, Inc., Respondent, v“. This is a result of the side-by-side layout in the printed reporter. I must follow the logical text flow from the image. The caption on page 419 is: CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Respondent, v GEORGE DULGEROFF et al., Defendants, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER SOUTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. WEST FORK CAPITAL EQUITIES, LLC, Nonparty Appellant. [29 NYS3d 291]— Text: “Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered August 13, 2014, which denied nonparty West Fork Capital Equities, LLC’s motion to intervene and to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.” Next paragraph: “Contrary to the motion court’s ruling, West Fork’s failure to attach the judgment of foreclosure to its motion to intervene and to vacate the judgment is not a fatal defect. At most, the court should have directed West Fork to supplement or resubmit its papers (see Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v Coutsodontis, 111 AD3d 483, 486 [1st Dept 2013]). However, contrary to West Fork’s argument, the order on appeal need not be vacated for failure to recite the papers on which it is based (see Singer v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 97 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1983]).” Next paragraph: “On the merits, plaintiff is correct that the fact that West Fork obtained its interest in the property after plaintiff had filed notice of pendency bound West Fork to the outcome of the foreclosure action (see CPLR 6501; 2386 Creston Ave. Realty, LLC v M-P-M Mgt. Corp., 58 AD3d 158, 161 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 716 [2009]). However, that alone would not definitively bar West Fork from intervening (see Westchester Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v H.E.W. Constr. Corp., 29 AD2d 670 [2d Dept 1968], lv denied 21 NY2d 646 [1968]). Nor is intervention barred by the fact that the motion was made post-judgment (see Martinez v Estate of Carney, 129 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2015]).” Note: “post-\njudgment” rejoins to “post-judgment“. Next paragraph: “Nevertheless, we affirm the denial of West Fork’s motion, because there is nothing in the record that indicates that leaving the judgment standing would result in any injustice (see Amalgamated Bank v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 25 NY3d 1098 [2015]). There was no fraud or collusion among the parties. Indeed, West Fork was on notice all along by virtue of the notice of pendency that its interest could be extinguished in the foreclosure action (see 2386 Creston Ave. Realty, 58 AD3d at 161). Its failure to intervene earlier, while on notice that its rights were at stake, undermines any claim of injustice.” Concur: “Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.” Wait, there is a case after that: “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JULIUS BROWN, Appellant. [27 NYS3d 869]—” This is a summary affirmance. The instructions say “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, Citimortgage is the first full one. But there is also a Caminero case on 420. I will stick to Citimortgage as it is the first complete one starting in the source. Law normalization: CPLR 6501 -> CPLR 6501 Citations: Sea Trade Mar. Corp. v Coutsodontis, 111 AD3d 483, 486 [1st Dept 2013] Singer v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 97 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1983] 2386 Creston Ave. Realty, LLC v M-P-M Mgt. Corp., 58 AD3d 158, 161 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 716 [2009] , lv denied Westchester Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v H.E.W. Constr. Corp., 29 AD2d 670 [2d Dept 1968], lv denied 21 NY2d 646 [1968] , lv denied Martinez v Estate of Carney, 129 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2015] Amalgamated Bank v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 25 NY3d 1098 [2015] 2386 Creston Ave. Realty, 58 AD3d at 161 Wait, Citimortgage citation is 29 NYS3d 291. The caption text on 419: “CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Respondent, v GEORGE DULGEROFF et al., Defendants, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER SOUTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. WEST FORK CAPITAL EQUITIES, LLC, Nonparty Appellant. [29 NYS3d 291]—” I‘ll put the bracketed citation in the citation field. Date for Citimortgage: Usually the date the order was decided by the AD. Since it says “Order... entered August 13, 2014, which denied...“, that is the lower court order. The AD date isn‘t printed on this specific page fragment header, but I will extract what is there. Actually, the top of page 419 shows a concurrence from the previous case. It doesn‘t show a new date heading for Citimortgage. However, AD decisions in these reporters are often grouped by date. Without a specific AD decision date on the page, I will leave date out of metadata or use the year from citations if clear, but better to follow instructions: “Omit elements without data“. Wait, I should check the reporter. This looks like 138 AD3d 419. I will use the reporter page for pagination. Final Check: - Verbatim text? Yes. - Citations? Yes. - Pagination? 419, 420. - Compound hyphen rejoins? “post-judgment” rejoins if it was hyphenated across a line. Looking at the OCR: “post--\njudgment“. Rejoin to “post-judgment“. - “interven- tion” on page 419 -> intervention. - “Appel- lant” -> Appellant. - “de- fendants” -> defendants. - “exces- sive” -> excessive. (In the Brown case, which I‘m not converting). - “unani- mously” -> unanimously. (In the Caminero case). I‘ll start converting Citimortgage.