Opinion
06-10-2016
GDH CONSTRUCTION INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Mark A. GUGINO, Linda M. Gugino, Defendants–Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Freid and Klawon, Williamsville (Wayne I. Freid of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Brautigam & Brautigam, LLP, Fredonia (Daryl P. Brautigam of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered January 9, 2015. The order granted the motion of defendants Mark A. Gugino and Linda M. Gugino for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Freid and Klawon, Williamsville (Wayne I. Freid of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Brautigam & Brautigam, LLP, Fredonia (Daryl P. Brautigam of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted the motion of Mark A. Gugino and Linda M. Gugino (defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff contends that defendants' motion should have been denied as premature pursuant to CPLR 3212(f) because further discovery was necessary. We reject that contention. Because the note and mortgage were a ity “the discovery sought would [not] produce evidence sufficient to defeat the motion” (Resetarits Constr. Corp. v. Elizabeth Pierce Olmstead, M.D. Center for the Visually Impaired [Appeal No. 2], 118 A.D.3d 1454, 1456, 988 N.Y.S.2d 797 ). Plaintiff's contention that defendants' motion should be denied on equitable grounds is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 985, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, and TROUTMAN, JJ., concur.