From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Shimon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2011
84 A.D.3d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-07481.

May 10, 2011.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Moshe Shimon appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), entered April 26, 2010, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.

Jeremy Rosenberg, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allison J. Schoenthal, Victoria McKenney, and Jessica L. Ellsworth of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ.


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

The appellant's contention that the branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him should have been denied as premature ( see CPLR 3212 [f]) is raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, is not properly before us ( see Aglow Studios, Inc. v Karlsson, 83 AD3d 747 [2d Dept 2011]; Burgos v Rateb, 64 AD3d 530, 531).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Shimon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2011
84 A.D.3d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Shimon

Case Details

Full title:DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Respondent, v. MOSHE SHIMON…

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

Date published: May 10, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3992
921 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Sharp v. Inc.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68…