Opinion
Nos. 2010-08508, 2010-09385.
September 27, 2011.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Putnam County Temple Jewish Center, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), dated July 27, 2010, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), or, in the alternative, in effect, to stay all proceedings in the action pending resolution of a related action entitled Putnam County Temple Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. Bank, pending in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, under index No. 98/2010.
Stein Riso Mantel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Gerard A. Riso of counsel), for appellant.
Traub Lieberman Straus Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Roseann Schuyler and Lisa L. Shrewsberry of counsel), and The Dorf Law Firm, LLP, Mamaroneck, N.Y. (Jonathan B. Nelson of counsel), for respondent Rhinebeck Savings Bank (one brief filed).
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner, Leanne Carvino, and Thomas W. Hyland of counsel), for respondents Levine Levine, P.C., and Robert S. Levine.
Before: Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Lott, JJ.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion of the defendant Putnam County Temple Jewish Center, Inc., which was, in effect, to stay all proceedings in the action pending resolution of a related action entitled Putnam County Temple Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. Bank, pending in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, under index No. 98/2010, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Prior to the commencement of the instant foreclosure action by Rhinebeck Savings Bank (hereinafter the bank) against, among others, Putnam County Temple Jewish Center, Inc. (hereinafter the temple), the temple had commenced an action (hereinafter the companion action) against, among others, the bank alleging, inter alia, that the bank's mortgages on the temple's property were invalid. In light of this Court's determination on related appeals in the companion action to reinstate several causes of action asserted against the bank pertaining to the alleged invalidity of the mortgages ( see Putnam County Temple Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. Bank, 87 AD3d 1118 [decided herewith]), the bank may not succeed in the instant foreclosure action if the temple succeeds in establishing that the bank's mortgages are invalid. Accordingly, the foreclosure action must be stayed pending resolution of the companion action ( see CPLR 3211 [al [4]; Wargo v Jean, 77 AD3d 919, 921; National Mgt. Corp. v Adolfi, 277 AD2d 553, 555).
The temple's remaining contentions are without merit.