From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilmington Tr. v. Argentic Real Est. Fin.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Apr 11, 2024
226 A.D.3d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

04-11-2024

WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ARGENTIC REAL ESTATE FINANCE LLC, Defendant–Appellant.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York (Jonathan E. Pickhardt of counsel), for appellant. Venable LLP, New York (Gregory A. Cross of counsel), for respondent.


Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York (Jonathan E. Pickhardt of counsel), for appellant.

Venable LLP, New York (Gregory A. Cross of counsel), for respondent.

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Gesmer, Shulman, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ.

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about November 20, 2023, which required defendant to repurchase the subject loan from plaintiff for a purchase price of $41,623,372.29 plus $9,000,000 prejudgment interest, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered July 19, 2023, which granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

[1, 2] Defendant’s satisfaction of the judgment of specific performance by repurchasing the subject loan, without so much as seeking a stay of enforcement, renders this appeal moot, as it would be difficult to unwind the repurchase (see Matter of Franco v. Dweck, 165 A.D.3d 551, 552, 87 N.Y.S.3d 5 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 903, 2019 WL 1996234 [2019]; Molina v. Chladek, 140 A.D.3d 523, 524, 34 N.Y.S.3d 429 [1st Dept. 2016]; North Geddes St Props., LLC v. Iglesia Misionera Monte DeSion, 162 A.D.3d 1512, 1513 [4th Dept. 2018]). While defendant argues that the repurchase need not be unwound and it may instead be awarded the value or repurchase price of the loan under CPLR 5523, such an award is only available to a "purchaser in good faith and for value."

Motion to dismiss the appeal granted.


Summaries of

Wilmington Tr. v. Argentic Real Est. Fin.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Apr 11, 2024
226 A.D.3d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

Wilmington Tr. v. Argentic Real Est. Fin.

Case Details

Full title:WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v…

Court:New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Date published: Apr 11, 2024

Citations

226 A.D.3d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
226 A.D.3d 493

Citing Cases

Diaz v. City of New York

Although orders deciding motions made on notice are generally appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a][2]), this…