From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Landmark Capital Partners, LLC v. Greaves

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 8, 2018
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 5672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2016–03687 Index No. 29631/09

08-08-2018

LANDMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. Wendell GREAVES, appellant, et al., defendants; BH Flushing, LLC, nonparty-respondent.

Steve C. Okenwa, New York, NY, for appellant. Scott A. Rosenberg, P.C., Garden City Park, N.Y. (Kevin R. Toole of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents Landmark Capital Partners, LLC, and Green Mountain Finance Fund, LLC (no brief filed). Law Office of Keith S. Garret, P.C., Babylon, NY, for nonparty-respondent.


Steve C. Okenwa, New York, NY, for appellant.

Scott A. Rosenberg, P.C., Garden City Park, N.Y. (Kevin R. Toole of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents Landmark Capital Partners, LLC, and Green Mountain Finance Fund, LLC (no brief filed).

Law Office of Keith S. Garret, P.C., Babylon, NY, for nonparty-respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Wendell Greaves appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated February 19, 2016. The order denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 2221, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue his prior motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated November 21, 2014, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appellant's motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, did not offer any new facts that had not been offered on the prior motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion, although denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, only for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see CPLR 2221[d][2] ; [e][2]; Arch Bay Holdings, LLC–Series 2010C v. Daisy, 132 A.D.3d 787, 787, 17 N.Y.S.3d 888 ; Poulard v. Judkins, 102 A.D.3d 665, 666, 956 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; Strunk v. Revenge Cab Corp., 98 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 950 N.Y.S.2d 596 ; Blackwell v. Mikevin Mgt. III, LLC, 88 A.D.3d 836, 838, 931 N.Y.S.2d 116 ). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and LASALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Landmark Capital Partners, LLC v. Greaves

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 8, 2018
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 5672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Landmark Capital Partners, LLC v. Greaves

Case Details

Full title:LANDMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. Wendell…

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

Date published: Aug 8, 2018

Citations

2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 5672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 5672

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Barot

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs. No appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue…

Solomon v. HSBC Bank U.S.

The plaintiffs' motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, did not offer any new facts that…