From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cohn v. Middle Road Riverhead Dev. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 1990
162 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 18, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The uncontroverted facts established that the appellant mortgagor defaulted on its first annual payment of the principal sum of $50,000 due and payable on December 31, 1987, pursuant to a mortgage and mortgage note entered into by the plaintiff mortgagees and the mortgagor. The mortgage contained an acceleration clause entitling the plaintiff mortgagees to principal and interest due and payable immediately upon the default.

Contrary to the mortgagor's assertions, it cannot be said that the mortgagees' conduct was unconscionable, when by letter dated January 26, 1988, the mortgagees informed the mortgagor that it was in default in payment and that unless it cured that default by February 3, 1988, the acceleration clause would be exercised. Additionally, the mortgagor received a subsequent letter dated February 23, 1988, informing it that the acceleration clause had been exercised and that the entire amount of the unpaid principal was due by virtue of the default in payment. In the same letter the mortgagor was informed that foreclosure proceedings would be instituted.

Moreover, the mortgagor may not avail himself of the defense of a good faith mistake, upon advice of counsel, that it erroneously believed that payment of the annual principal amount could be withheld until such time that the mortgagee provided it with a copy of a certificate of reduction pursuant to Real Property Law § 274-a. Such a mistake would hardly be considered trival or inconsequential and was not properly cured. Therefore, equitable intervention by the court is not warranted to relieve the default (see, Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 N.Y.2d 175; Karas v. Wasserman, 91 A.D.2d 812; Key Intl. Mfg. v Stillman, 103 A.D.2d 475, mod on other grounds 66 N.Y.2d 924).

We have examined the mortgagor's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cohn v. Middle Road Riverhead Dev. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 1990
162 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Cohn v. Middle Road Riverhead Dev. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MYRNA D. COHN et al., Respondents, v. MIDDLE ROAD RIVERHEAD DEVELOPMENT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 18, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 764

Citing Cases

HSBC Mortg. Corp. v. Gigante

Logue v Young, 94 AD 2d 827 [3d Dept 1983]. Cohn v Middle Road Riverhead Development Corp., 162 AD 2d 578,…

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Weinman

ive overreaching or unconscionable conduct on the part of the obligee to exploit an inadvertent,…