Opinion
946 CA 23-00997
12-22-2023
ADIRONDACK BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CBB REALTY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Craig S. Brodock, Defendant-Respondent, and Barbara M. Brodock, Also Known as Barbara T. Brodock, Defendant-Appellant.
YANG-PATYI LAW FIRM, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOSEPHINE YANG-PATYI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (JANET D. CALLAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
YANG-PATYI LAW FIRM, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOSEPHINE YANG-PATYI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (JANET D. CALLAHAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, NOWAK, AND DELCONTE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this mortgage foreclosure action, Barbara M. Brodock, also known as Barbara T. Brodock (defendant), appeals from an order that denied her motion to compel the court-appointed receiver to pay an insurance premium on unencumbered property in Florida and to terminate the receivership. Defendant's contention that language in Supreme Court's decision concerning the receiver's past performance should be struck is not properly before us inasmuch as "the fact that [a decision] ‘may contain language or reasoning which [parties] deem adverse to their interests does not furnish them with a basis ... to take an appeal’ " ( Matter of Olney v. Town of Barrington , 162 A.D.3d 1610, 1611, 80 N.Y.S.3d 563 [4th Dept. 2018] ; see Matter of Khatib v. Liverpool Cent. School Dist. , 244 A.D.2d 957, 957, 668 N.Y.S.2d 130 [4th Dept. 1997] ). Similarly, defendant's contention that any of the court's "decision[s] and orders [that] contradict the terms of the [m]arital [s]ettlement [a]greement [between defendant and her former husband] and one another, [should] be vacated or modified so that they are consistent" is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore not properly before us (see Dunn v. Covanta Niagara I, LLC [Appeal No. 1] , 181 A.D.3d 1340, 1340, 119 N.Y.S.3d 920 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora , 202 A.D.2d 984, 985, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 1994] ). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none requires modification or reversal of the order appealed from.