Opinion
No. 232 CA 22-00301
07-28-2023
DAVID BARKER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ANTHONY V. GERVERA, AMANDA D. GERVERA AND FARM CREDIT EAST, ACA, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
LONGSTREET & BERRY, LLP, FAYETTEVILLE (MICHAEL J. LONGSTREET OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (MATTHEW W. O'NEIL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS ANTHONY V. GERVERA AND AMANDA D. GERVERA. HANCOCK & ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (JANET D. CALLAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT FARM CREDIT EAST, ACA.
LONGSTREET & BERRY, LLP, FAYETTEVILLE (MICHAEL J. LONGSTREET OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (MATTHEW W. O'NEIL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS ANTHONY V. GERVERA AND AMANDA D. GERVERA.
HANCOCK & ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (JANET D. CALLAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT FARM CREDIT EAST, ACA.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND OGDEN, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (James P. McClusky, J.), entered February 17, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of defendant Farm Credit East, ACA to dismiss the action against it and granted in part the motion of defendants Anthony V. Gervera and Amanda D. Gervera to dismiss the action against them.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion of defendant Farm Credit East, ACA, is denied, the action against that defendant is reinstated, and the motion of defendants Anthony V. Gervera and Amanda D. Gervera is denied in its entirety.
Same memorandum as in Barker v. Gervera ([appeal No. 1]__A.D.3d__ [] [4th Dept 2023]).