Centerbank Mortgage Co. v. Norinsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Centerbank Mortgage Co. v. Norinsberg

202 A.D.2d 339, 609 N.Y.S.2d 221

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 339 (Centerbank Mortgage Co. v. Norinsberg) 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

Centerbank Mortgage Co. v. Norinsberg, 202 A.D.2d 339, 609 N.Y.S.2d 221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered October 27, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant argues that once he made certain payments under the parties’ February 1991 stipulation discontinuing the first foreclosure action, the mortgage and note were reinstated, including the requirement of written notice of an election to accelerate, which he was not given prior to the institution of this second foreclosure action. We disagree.

The stipulation clearly stated that plaintiff retained the “right to accelerate the mortgage and to commence an action to foreclose the mortgage” in the event that defendant “default[ed] in making the monthly mortgage payments”; no additional notice provision was included. The mortgage and note were never reinstated due to defendant’s untimely payment.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered October 27, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant argues that once he made certain payments under the parties’ February 1991 stipulation discontinuing the first foreclosure action, the mortgage and note were reinstated, including the requirement of written notice of an election to accelerate, which he was not given prior to the institution of this second foreclosure action. We disagree.

The stipulation clearly stated that plaintiff retained the “right to accelerate the mortgage and to commence an action to foreclose the mortgage” in the event that defendant “default[ed] in making the monthly mortgage payments”; no additional notice provision was included. The mortgage and note were never reinstated due to defendant’s untimely payment.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 339, 609 N.Y.S.2d 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centerbank-mortgage-co-v-norinsberg-nyappdiv-1994.