Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. MacPherson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. MacPherson

122 A.D.3d 896, 998 N.Y.S.2d 394

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 26, 2014·No. 2013-10342·Published

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Donald MacPherson appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated June 14, 2013, which, upon an order of the same court dated February 28, 2008, denying his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, directed the sale of the subject property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant Donald MacPherson, a notice of default sent to him after he defaulted on the subject note provided him with 30 days after mailing of the notice within which to cure the default. Accordingly, the notice provided him with the cure period required under tbe terms of the subject note and mortgage.

MacPherson’s remaining contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (see e.g. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Cappelli, 120 AD3d 621, 622 [2014]; Gonzales v Munchkinland Child Care, LLC, 89 AD3d 987, 988 [2011]; Whitehead v City of New York, 79 AD3d 858, 861 [2010]).

Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Miller and Duffy, 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, the defendant Donald MacPherson appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated June 14, 2013, which, upon an order of the same court dated February 28, 2008, denying his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, directed the sale of the subject property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant Donald MacPherson, a notice of default sent to him after he defaulted on the subject note provided him with 30 days after mailing of the notice within which to cure the default. Accordingly, the notice provided him with the cure period required under tbe terms of the subject note and mortgage.

MacPherson’s remaining contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (see e.g. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Cappelli, 120 AD3d 621, 622 [2014]; Gonzales v Munchkinland Child Care, LLC, 89 AD3d 987, 988 [2011]; Whitehead v City of New York, 79 AD3d 858, 861 [2010]).

Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. MacPherson, 122 A.D.3d 896, 998 N.Y.S.2d 394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

122 A.D.3d 896 (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. MacPherson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related