3C Associates v. IC & LP Realty Co.

137 A.D.2d 439, 524 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1633
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 439 (3C Associates v. IC & LP Realty Co.) 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
3C Associates v. IC & LP Realty Co., 137 A.D.2d 439, 524 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered January 5, 1987, which directed defendant to pay, inter alia, the principal amount outstanding on a wraparound mortgage, plus interest, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to direct the additional payment of $60,000 in accrued interest and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As correctly determined by the court below, this is a foreclosure proceeding and, thus, the prepayment penalty of $150,000 provided in paragraph 21 of the mortgage rider has not been invoked. The terms of paragraph 21 make clear that said sum is an obligation which becomes due and payable only if there is a voluntary exercise of the right to prepay. Given that the accelerated payment here is the result of plaintiffs mortgagees having elected to bring this foreclosure action, they may not exact a prepayment penalty. (George H. Nutman, Inc. v Aetna Business Credit, 115 Misc 2d 168.)

Separate and distinct from any prepayment penalty, however, is the obligation that defendant mortgagor incurred pursuant to the terms of the payment provision of the mortgage, which specifies monthly interest rates of 13.6365% and, in addition, that "the sum of $60,000 as additional accrued interest shall be paid on July 1, 1986”. Defendant agreed to this provision of the mortgage and is, accordingly, bound thereby. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. DeKalb Marcy Estates, LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 30741(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2026)
RREF III Stor. LLC v. Paul
2024 NY Slip Op 01771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Virkler v. V.S. Virkler & Son, Inc.
2021 NY Slip Op 04434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
In Re South Side House, LLC
451 B.R. 248 (E.D. New York, 2011)
Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Munson
932 A.2d 1079 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2007)
D.I.S., LLC v. Sagos
38 A.D.3d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
SO/Bluestar, LLC v. Canarsie Hotel Corp.
33 A.D.3d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. Uniondale Realty Associates
11 Misc. 3d 980 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Kirk v. Kitchens
49 P.3d 1189 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2002)
TMG Life Insurance v. Ashner
898 P.2d 1145 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.2d 439, 524 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/3c-associates-v-ic-lp-realty-co-nyappdiv-1988.