From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nationstar Mortg. v. Forrest

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 14, 2020
187 A.D.3d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

2019–03046 Index No. 514041/17

10-14-2020

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, appellant, v. Alfonzo FORREST, et al., defendants, 329 Bainbridge Realty, Inc., respondent.

McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Richard P. Haber of counsel), for appellant. Rosenfeld Law Office, Lawrence, N.Y. (Avi Rosenfeld of counsel), for respondent.


McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Richard P. Haber of counsel), for appellant.

Rosenfeld Law Office, Lawrence, N.Y. (Avi Rosenfeld of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), entered January 7, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference, and granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant 329 Bainbridge Realty, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar appealed from, with costs.

For reasons stated in Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Engel, 163 A.D.3d 631, 633, 81 N.Y.S.3d 156, lv granted in part 33 N.Y.3d 1039, 103 N.Y.S.3d 12, 126 N.E.3d 1052, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference, and granting that branch of the cross motion of the defendant 329 Bainbridge Realty, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

We do not address the argument raised in Point I of the plaintiff's brief as it is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Borek, 171 A.D.3d 848, 851, 97 N.Y.S.3d 657 ).

In view of the foregoing, the argument raised in Point III of the plaintiff's brief is academic.

AUSTIN, J.P., COHEN, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nationstar Mortg. v. Forrest

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Oct 14, 2020
187 A.D.3d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Nationstar Mortg. v. Forrest

Case Details

Full title:Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, appellant, v. Alfonzo Forrest, et al.…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Oct 14, 2020

Citations

187 A.D.3d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
187 A.D.3d 927
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 5763

Citing Cases

Flowers v. Mombrun

ATIC's contention that evidence may have been lost in the months following the independent medical…

Das v. Bangl. Hindu Mandir, Inc.

While the second and third provisions of the settlement agreement are enforceable (seeSpaulding v. Benenati,…