Opinion
8265 Index 651048/17
01-31-2019
Michael PARK, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. NEWBANK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Kimm Law Firm, Bayside (Michael S. Kimm of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Tae H. Whang, LLC, Palisades (Tae H. Whang of counsel), for respondents.
Kimm Law Firm, Bayside (Michael S. Kimm of counsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Tae H. Whang, LLC, Palisades (Tae H. Whang of counsel), for respondents.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Kahn, Singh, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered September 22, 2017, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, deemed appeal from the judgment ( CPLR 5501[c] ), same court and Justice, entered February 8, 2018, dismissing the complaint, and, as so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The loan is not a construction loan, as it was not secured by a mortgage on real property ( Lien Law § 2[13], [14] ; Juszak v. Lily & Don Holding Corp., 224 A.D.2d 588, 589, 639 N.Y.S.2d 403 [2d Dept. 1996] ).
Moreover, Newbank exercised its rights, under the security agreement, by taking possession of the proceeds of the sale of the collateral. Accordingly, plaintiffs failed to establish any damages based on the actions taken by Newbank. We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.