Opinion
Index No. 501631/2019 Motion Seq. No. 4
01-11-2024
ANDREA CAPUTO, Plaintiff, v. 6901 LLC., CIRCLES BAY RIDGE REALTY CORP., CITY OF NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, NEW' YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, "JOHN DOE" NOS. 1-25, the Names of the "John Doe" Defendants Being Fictitious and Unknown to Plaintiff, the Persons and Entities Intended to Be Persons Who May Be In Possession of, or May Have Possessory Liens or Other Interests in Any Part of the Mortgaged Premises, Defendants,
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN, JUDGE.
DECISION AND ORDER
LEON RUCHELSMAN, JUDGE.
The defendants have moved seeking to reargue a decision and order dated October 24, 2023 pursuant to CPLR § 2221. The plaintiff opposes the motion. Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination.
As recorded in the prior order and companion actions, the plaintiff is the mortgagee and holder of mortgage in the amount of $900,500. The mortgage was actually consolidated from two prior mortgages and was recorded on June 10, 2009, The mortgages had a maturity date of June 1, 2013. The complaint alleges the defendants failed to make the necessary payments and failed to pay off the mortgage by June 1, 2013. The plaintiff moved seeking summary judgement arguing there are no questions of fact the defendants have defaulted upon the loans. The court awarded summary judgement but stayed any enforcement pending appellate review of a related action. The defendants now move seeking to reargue that determination asserting that summary judgement is premature since there are questions Of fact that: must be resolved.
Conclusions of Law
A motion to reargue must be based upon the fact the court overlooked or misapprehended fact or law or for some other reason mistakenly arrived at in its earlier decision (Sokolnik v. Voronova, 221 A.D.3d 1036, __N.Y.S.3d__ [2d Dept., 2023]).
The defendants argue that ''the court's ultimate dismissal of the 2017 action was not based upon the statute of limitations, but upon a finding that Defendants had not raised issues of fact" (see Affirmation in Support, ¶5 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 92]). The motion seeking summary judgement in that action was sought on numerous grounds including the fact "the statute of limitations to bring any claim relating to the validity of the mortgages and/or any fraud related thereto has long expired" (see, Affirmation in Support, ¶4 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 37, Index Number 507756/2017]). Indeed, the court's decision granting summary judgement almost exclusively analyzed the statute of limitations and concluded that "the lawsuit was not timely commenced and consequently the motion seeking summary judgement dismissing the lawsuit is granted" (see, Decision and Order, page 6 [NYSCEF DQC. No. 166, Index Number 507756/2017]). A motion to reargue was filed and a decision rendered. In that decision the court adhered to, its earlier decision dismissing the lawsuit but concerning many of the causes of action the dismissal was based on other, substantive, grounds (see, Decision and Order 183 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 166, Index Number 507756/2017]). This reargument motion, essentially, seeks to modify the court's decision granting summary judgement in this action on the grounds the court failed to address the substantive reasons most of the causes of action of the 2017 lawsuit were dismissed. Further, the defendants assert that the substantive grounds for dismissal is currently awaiting an appellate determination and thus the basis for summary judgement in this action was not entirely accurate.
It is true that in the 2017 action the court dismissed some causes pf action based upon statute of limitations grounds and other based upon substantive grounds. Thus, regardless of the reasons why that lawsuit was dismissed, it was assuredly dismissed. Thus, the motion seeking reargument is granted to the extent the prior decision is modified to explain that the causes of action not dismissed based upon the statute of limitations were dismissed based upon substantive grounds. Those substantive reasons, likewise support the court's prior determination in this action granting summary judgement. That determination is not disturbed. Further, the prior decision specifically granted the defendant's request to stay the enforcement of any determinations in this case pending the resolution of the appeal in the 2017 action. Thus, the defendants are secured that no adverse action will be taken absent appellate review. Further, at this juncture the motion seeking to amend any pleadings is denied. The parties must await any appellate determination before any further action may be taken concerning the pleadings.
So ordered.