CB Frontier LLC v. LStar Capital Finance II, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CB Frontier LLC v. LStar Capital Finance II, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 6621, 153 A.D.3d 1180, 61 N.Y.S.3d 15

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2017

Docket4501 654339/16

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6621 (CB Frontier LLC v. LStar Capital Finance II, Inc.) 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

CB Frontier LLC v. LStar Capital Finance II, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 6621, 153 A.D.3d 1180, 61 N.Y.S.3d 15 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 7, 2017, which, in a declaratory judgment action, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found that defendant failed to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law based on the mortgage that defendant held on plaintiff’s properties and the accompanying UCC-1 statement. Plaintiff advanced a reasonable interpretation of the collateral provision in the mortgage and the nearly identical provision in the UCC-1 statement in maintaining that the portion of the FAR bonus awarded to it by the City of New York that had not yet been transferred or applied to plaintiff’s properties could be transferred to another developer and was not subject to defendant’s existing mortgage lien. This was because, although the mortgage included “all” of defendant’s rights “in any manner whatsoever” and “in any way,” these inclusive terms were modified by the arguable limitation that they be “belonging, relating to or pertaining to the land.” That the FAR bonus could be transferred to another developer supports plaintiff’s argument that it was not an inherent element of ownership of the land and therefore was not collateral under the mortgage.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 7, 2017, which, in a declaratory judgment action, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found that defendant failed to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law based on the mortgage that defendant held on plaintiff’s properties and the accompanying UCC-1 statement. Plaintiff advanced a reasonable interpretation of the collateral provision in the mortgage and the nearly identical provision in the UCC-1 statement in maintaining that the portion of the FAR bonus awarded to it by the City of New York that had not yet been transferred or applied to plaintiff’s properties could be transferred to another developer and was not subject to defendant’s existing mortgage lien. This was because, although the mortgage included “all” of defendant’s rights “in any manner whatsoever” and “in any way,” these inclusive terms were modified by the arguable limitation that they be “belonging, relating to or pertaining to the land.” That the FAR bonus could be transferred to another developer supports plaintiff’s argument that it was not an inherent element of ownership of the land and therefore was not collateral under the mortgage.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6621, 153 A.D.3d 1180, 61 N.Y.S.3d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cb-frontier-llc-v-lstar-capital-finance-ii-inc-nyappdiv-2017.