Caputo v. Holt
Opinion
| Caputo v Holt |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 00685 |
| Decided on February 11, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth 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 February 11, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., BANNISTER, SMITH, OGDEN, AND DELCONTE, JJ.
76 CA 24-01298
v
NATHAN HOLT, OWEN BILLET, PREMIUM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, DONALD CHENEY, ESQ., CHENEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ABAR ABSTRACT CORPORATION, MONROE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
JAMES R. CAPUTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS NATHAN HOLT, OWEN BILLET, PREMIUM MORTGAGE
FIRM, PLLC.
MATTHEW SCHWARTZ, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ADAM M. CLARK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT MONROE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), entered July 30, 2024. The order, inter alia, granted the motions of defendants Monroe County Clerk's Office, Donald Cheney, Esq., and Cheney Law Firm, LLC, to dismiss the complaint against them and granted the motion of defendants Nathan Holt, Owen Billet, Premium Mortgage Corporation and ABAR Abstract Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.
Entered: February 11, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2026 NY Slip Op 00685 (Caputo v. Holt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.