Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Glasgow

2022 NY Slip Op 03881
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 2022
DocketIndex No. 710921/15
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 NY Slip Op 03881 (Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Glasgow) 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
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Glasgow, 2022 NY Slip Op 03881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Glasgow (2022 NY Slip Op 03881)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Glasgow
2022 NY Slip Op 03881
Decided on June 15, 2022
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 15, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
PAUL WOOTEN
LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

2019-07897
(Index No. 710921/15)

[*1]Bank of New York Mellon, etc., respondent,

v

Patricia Glasgow, appellant, et al., defendants.


Petroff Amshen LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Serge F. Petroff, James Tierney, and Steven Amshen of counsel), for appellant.

Davidson Fink LLP, Rochester, NY (Richard N. Franco of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Patricia Glasgow appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Frederick D. R. Sampson, J.), entered February 14, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant's contention that the plaintiff's submissions in support of its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with the service requirements of RPAPL 1304 is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Fnbn I, LLC v DiTomasso, 199 AD3d 656, 657-658; Bank of Am., N.A. v Montagnese, 198 AD3d 850, 852; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Marous, 186 AD3d 669, 672; Wachovia Mtge. FSB v Macwhinnie, 175 AD3d 1587, 1590; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gonzalez, 174 AD3d 555, 558).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., MALTESE, WOOTEN and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Montagnese
2021 NY Slip Op 05683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Fnbn I, LLC v. DiTomasso
2021 NY Slip Op 05955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 NY Slip Op 03881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-ny-mellon-v-glasgow-nyappdiv-2022.