From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. March

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 10, 2021
191 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2019–07614 Index No. 708074/18

02-10-2021

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., respondent, v. Anthony MARCH, appellant, et al., defendants.

David B. Calender, Valley Stream, NY, for appellant. Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ben Z. Raindorf of counsel), for respondent.


David B. Calender, Valley Stream, NY, for appellant.

Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ben Z. Raindorf of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Anthony March appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered April 19, 2019. The order denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him as time-barred.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the defendant demonstrated that the acceleration of the mortgage debt occurred more than six years prior to the commencement of the present action, the defendant sustained his initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the action was untimely (see 21st Mtge. Corp. v. Balliraj, 177 A.D.3d 687, 689, 111 N.Y.S.3d 347 ). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff revoked its election to accelerate the debt. The plaintiff submitted evidence that, in addition to voluntarily discontinuing a prior foreclosure action, it resumed its demand for monthly installment payments by invoicing the defendant for those payments (see Christiana Trust v. Barua, 184 A.D.3d 140, 146–147, 125 N.Y.S.3d 420 ; Milone v. U.S. Bank N.A., 164 A.D.3d 145, 154, 83 N.Y.S.3d 524 ).

The Supreme Court properly declined to consider the defendant's additional arguments in support of his motion for summary dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him as those arguments were raised for the first time in his reply papers (see First Republic Bank v. Salander, 131 A.D.3d 668, 669, 15 N.Y.S.3d 703 ).

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. March

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 10, 2021
191 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. March

Case Details

Full title:DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., respondent, v. Anthony MARCH…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2021

Citations

191 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
138 N.Y.S.3d 356

Citing Cases

V.S. Med. Servs. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.

In its Reply, Defendant also contended that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R.…

The Non-Exempt Marital Tr. v. Premier One Corp.

In Petitioner's Opp to Cross and Reply, it eventually provided supporting exhibits on April 28, 2022.…