21st Mortgage Corp. v. Rodriguez-Cardona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

21st Mortgage Corp. v. Rodriguez-Cardona

153 A.D.3d 1383, 60 N.Y.S.3d 697

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 27, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 153 A.D.3d 1383 (21st Mortgage Corp. v. Rodriguez-Cardona) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

21st Mortgage Corp. v. Rodriguez-Cardona, 153 A.D.3d 1383, 60 N.Y.S.3d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated March 13, 2015, as granted the motion of the defendant Jose Luis Rodriguez-Cardona pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as time-barred.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the appellant, in light of our decision and order in Option One Mtge. v Rodriguez-Cardona (153 AD3d 1422 [2017] [decided herewith]).

Our reinstatement of the complaint in Option One Mtge. v Rodriguez-Cardona (153 AD3d 1422 [2017] [decided herewith]), along with the substitution of the plaintiff as the named plaintiff therein, renders this appeal academic (see RPAPL 1301 [3]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Reid, 132 AD3d 788 [2015]).

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated March 13, 2015, as granted the motion of the defendant Jose Luis Rodriguez-Cardona pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as time-barred.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the appellant, in light of our decision and order in Option One Mtge. v Rodriguez-Cardona (153 AD3d 1422 [2017] [decided herewith]).

Our reinstatement of the complaint in Option One Mtge. v Rodriguez-Cardona (153 AD3d 1422 [2017] [decided herewith]), along with the substitution of the plaintiff as the named plaintiff therein, renders this appeal academic (see RPAPL 1301 [3]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Reid, 132 AD3d 788 [2015]).

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A.D.3d 1383, 60 N.Y.S.3d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/21st-mortgage-corp-v-rodriguez-cardona-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack