Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Miller

2019 NY Slip Op 3482

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

DecidedMay 3, 2019

Docket163 CA 17-01769

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 3482 (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Miller) 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

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Miller, 2019 NY Slip Op 3482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Miller (2019 NY Slip Op 03482)

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Miller

2019 NY Slip Op 03482

Decided on May 3, 2019

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 May 3, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

163 CA 17-01769

[*1]DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MASTR SPECIALIZED LOAN TRUST 2006-3 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-3, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v

MICHAEL T. MILLER, DEBORAH L. MILLER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

RAS BORISKIN, LLC, WESTBURY (CHRISTOPHER LESTAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

SCOTT BIELICKI, SHERRILL, FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (James W. McCarthy, J.), entered November 10, 2016. The order, among other things, disallowed plaintiff from interest, costs, disbursements, attorney's fees and late fees accruing after February 2012.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: The interlocutory order on appeal is not appealable as of right pursuant to CPLR 5701 (a) (2) because it did not decide a motion made on notice (see Novastar Mtge., Inc. v Melius, 145 AD3d 1419, 1420 [3d Dept 2016]; Ramos v Schoonmaker Homes—John Steinberg, Inc., 213 AD2d 534, 535 [2d Dept 1995]; see generally CPLR 2211; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). We decline to treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal under CPLR 5701 (c).

Entered: May 3, 2019

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court

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