Big Chief Lewis, Inc. v. Stim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Big Chief Lewis, Inc. v. Stim

99 A.D.2d 501, 471 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16697

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 501 (Big Chief Lewis, Inc. v. Stim) 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

Big Chief Lewis, Inc. v. Stim, 99 A.D.2d 501, 471 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated March 23, 1983, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as time barred. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the action granted. The mortgage in this case was due and payable on December 31,1967. The Statute of Limitations expired six years later, on December 31,1973 (CPLR 213, subd 4). Although plaintiff asserts that two payments were made in 1981 toward the outstanding interest, there is no claim or evidence that these payments were made by defendants or their predecessor in interest. There is also no claim that defendants or their predecessor ever made any payments of interest or principal on the mortgage. Any payments made by a third party in this case could not, as a matter of law, have revived defendants’ obligation under the mortgage (see General Obligations Law, § 17-107; see, also, Roth v Michelson, 55 NY2d 278). Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment must be granted, and the action dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Boyers, 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, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated March 23, 1983, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as time barred. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the action granted. The mortgage in this case was due and payable on December 31,1967. The Statute of Limitations expired six years later, on December 31,1973 (CPLR 213, subd 4). Although plaintiff asserts that two payments were made in 1981 toward the outstanding interest, there is no claim or evidence that these payments were made by defendants or their predecessor in interest. There is also no claim that defendants or their predecessor ever made any payments of interest or principal on the mortgage. Any payments made by a third party in this case could not, as a matter of law, have revived defendants’ obligation under the mortgage (see General Obligations Law, § 17-107; see, also, Roth v Michelson, 55 NY2d 278). Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment must be granted, and the action dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 501, 471 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/big-chief-lewis-inc-v-stim-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack