Opinion
2020-00232 Index No. 518653/17
04-21-2021
Demona C. MILLS, respondent, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., appellant.
Knuckles, Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (Gregg L. Verrilli of counsel), for appellant. LeNoir Law Firm, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (S. John LeNoir of counsel), for respondent.
Knuckles, Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (Gregg L. Verrilli of counsel), for appellant.
LeNoir Law Firm, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (S. John LeNoir of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), dated November 27, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
On September 27, 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage on the ground that the six-year period for the commencement of an action to foreclose the subject mortgage had expired (see CPLR 213[4] ). The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant appeals.
On its motion, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant demonstrated that any acceleration of the subject mortgage debt that occurred in February 2011 by the filing of the complaint in a prior action to foreclose the subject mortgage was revoked by the voluntary discontinuance of that foreclosure action (see Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Engel, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 01090 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.
MASTRO, A.P.J., HINDS–RADIX, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.