Bank of Am., N.A. v. Ragnauth

Opinion

Bank of Am., N.A. v Ragnauth

2026 NY Slip Op 05001

August 19, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Bank of America, National Association, etc., respondent,

v

Bhagwandai Ragnauth, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 19, 2026

2024-08203, (Index No. 608906/18)

Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Lillian Wan

Phillip Hom, JJ.

Anele & Associates, Queens Village, NY (Irene Nwanyanwu of counsel), for appellants.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York, NY (Ellis M. Oster, Sr., and Ben Z. Raindorf of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to quiet title to certain real property and for related declaratory relief, the defendants Bhagwandai Ragnauth and Joseph Ragnauth appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Conrad D. Singer, J.), entered April 10, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for declaratory relief.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, making an appropriate declaration in accordance herewith.

On September 15, 2006, the defendant Bhagwandai Ragnauth (hereinafter Bhagwandai) simultaneously executed a note and mortgage encumbering certain real property located in Uniondale. Bhagwandai and her husband, the defendant Joseph Ragnauth (hereinafter together the defendants), were the record owners of the property. The mortgage was not recorded in the Nassau County Clerk's office.

In July 2018, the plaintiff, who was effectively assigned the note and mortgage after their execution, commenced this action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to quiet title to the property and for a judgment declaring, among other things, that the original mortgage dated September 15, 2006, was lost and not recorded through no fault of the plaintiff and directing the Nassau County Clerk to record a copy of the mortgage. In October 2023, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the cause of action for declaratory relief. The defendants filed untimely opposition to the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff rejected the opposition papers as untimely. In an order entered April 10, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion. The defendants appeal.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the order is appealable, and the appeal is not academic. The order was not entered upon the defendants' default because, although the Supreme Court noted that it was entitled to disregard the defendants' untimely opposition papers, it considered [*2]the merits of the defendants' opposition (see CPLR 5511; cf. Fei Wu Hu v Lei, 232 AD3d 852, 853; Vassiliou-Sideris v Nautilus, Inc., 186 AD3d 1756, 1757). Moreover, the defendants' appeal is not academic because a determination of this appeal would directly affect the rights of the parties (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Matter of Cassini, 182 AD3d 1, 9).

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing. "'An action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations. However, where a declaratory judgment action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which a specific limitation period is provided, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period'" (Matter of Coden v Town of Huntington, 235 AD3d 744, 746, quoting Save the View Now v Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp., 156 AD3d 928, 931; see CPLR 213[1]). Here, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to when the plaintiff discovered that the original mortgage was lost, and thus, when the cause of action for declaratory relief accrued (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McAvoy, 188 AD3d 808, 810; cf. Schulman v Schulman Family Enters., 222 AD3d 898, 899-900).

Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the original mortgage dated September 15, 2006, was lost and not recorded through no fault of the plaintiff (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court