2390 Creston Holdings LLC v. Bivins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2390 Creston Holdings LLC v. Bivins

2017 NY Slip Op 2605, 149 A.D.3d 415, 51 N.Y.S.3d 61

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

DecidedApril 4, 2017

Docket3629 850261/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2605 (2390 Creston Holdings LLC v. Bivins) 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

2390 Creston Holdings LLC v. Bivins, 2017 NY Slip Op 2605, 149 A.D.3d 415, 51 N.Y.S.3d 61 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kelly O’Neill Levy, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2016, which granted defendant Oliver Bivens, II’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him individually and as administrator of the Estate of Loma M. Bivins, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant established prima facie that plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, Capital One, N.A., intentionally waived its right to acceleration of the loan with interest at the default rate and reinstated the loan (see Alsens Am. Portland Cement Works v Degnon Contr. Co., 222 NY 34, 37 [1917]). Capital One’s October 22, 2102 statement to the decedent borrower’s estate, issued after receiving defendant’s payment of the amount of the monthly installments outstanding, shows an “[adjustment” to the estate’s account consisting of a credit of the difference between the amount of accrued interest at the default rate and the amount at the note rate, less the principal *416 payment for October 2012. Capital One subsequently sent the estate 20 consecutive invoices consistent with the original loan terms and inconsistent with a demand for full payment of the principal and interest at the default rate. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to Capital One’s intent in so acting.

Even if the waiver constituted a loan modification, which pursuant to the note and mortgage was required to be “in writing,” the motion court correctly found that “Capital One expressly reversed the default interest rate and the default interest charges” (compare e.g. Bercy Invs. v Sun, 239 AD2d 161 [1st Dept 1997] [no evidence of relinquishment of right to accelerate loans]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kelly O’Neill Levy, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2016, which granted defendant Oliver Bivens, II’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him individually and as administrator of the Estate of Loma M. Bivins, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant established prima facie that plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, Capital One, N.A., intentionally waived its right to acceleration of the loan with interest at the default rate and reinstated the loan (see Alsens Am. Portland Cement Works v Degnon Contr. Co., 222 NY 34, 37 [1917]). Capital One’s October 22, 2102 statement to the decedent borrower’s estate, issued after receiving defendant’s payment of the amount of the monthly installments outstanding, shows an “[adjustment” to the estate’s account consisting of a credit of the difference between the amount of accrued interest at the default rate and the amount at the note rate, less the principal *416 payment for October 2012. Capital One subsequently sent the estate 20 consecutive invoices consistent with the original loan terms and inconsistent with a demand for full payment of the principal and interest at the default rate. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to Capital One’s intent in so acting.

Even if the waiver constituted a loan modification, which pursuant to the note and mortgage was required to be “in writing,” the motion court correctly found that “Capital One expressly reversed the default interest rate and the default interest charges” (compare e.g. Bercy Invs. v Sun, 239 AD2d 161 [1st Dept 1997] [no evidence of relinquishment of right to accelerate loans]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2605, 149 A.D.3d 415, 51 N.Y.S.3d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2390-creston-holdings-llc-v-bivins-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack