Flushing Savings Bank, FSB v. Toju Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flushing Savings Bank, FSB v. Toju Realty Corp.

129 A.D.3d 1018, 10 N.Y.S.3d 878

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

DecidedJune 24, 2015

Docket2014-05066

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 1018 (Flushing Savings Bank, FSB v. Toju Realty Corp.) 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

Flushing Savings Bank, FSB v. Toju Realty Corp., 129 A.D.3d 1018, 10 N.Y.S.3d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Toju Realty Corporation and Edwin Gbenebitse appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pfau, J.), dated May 1, 2014, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was to direct the plaintiff to provide them with a payoff statement or to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage. *1019 After a judgment of foreclosure and sale had been entered, the appellants moved, inter alia, to direct the plaintiff to provide them with a payoff statement or to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to direct the plaintiff to provide them with a payoff statement or to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the subject mortgage did not provide the mortgagor with a right to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage. Also contrary to the appellants’ contention, the mortgagor was not entitled to a payoff statement pursuant to Real Property Law § 274-a, as the mortgagor had not “executed and delivered to another a written contract to convey, or . . . received a written commitment to make a mortgage loan upon, the [subject] real property or an interest therein” (Real Property Law § 274-a [1]; see Matter of Horseheads Commercial Dev. Partners v Horseheads Indus. Realty Assoc., 227 AD2d 764, 766 [1996]; cf. Matter of Cathedral Props. Corp. v Blinbaum, 44 AD3d 852, 853-854 [2007]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are not properly before this Court.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Barros, 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 defendants Toju Realty Corporation and Edwin Gbenebitse appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pfau, J.), dated May 1, 2014, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was to direct the plaintiff to provide them with a payoff statement or to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage. *1019 After a judgment of foreclosure and sale had been entered, the appellants moved, inter alia, to direct the plaintiff to provide them with a payoff statement or to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to direct the plaintiff to provide them with a payoff statement or to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the subject mortgage did not provide the mortgagor with a right to reinstate the underlying loan and mortgage. Also contrary to the appellants’ contention, the mortgagor was not entitled to a payoff statement pursuant to Real Property Law § 274-a, as the mortgagor had not “executed and delivered to another a written contract to convey, or . . . received a written commitment to make a mortgage loan upon, the [subject] real property or an interest therein” (Real Property Law § 274-a [1]; see Matter of Horseheads Commercial Dev. Partners v Horseheads Indus. Realty Assoc., 227 AD2d 764, 766 [1996]; cf. Matter of Cathedral Props. Corp. v Blinbaum, 44 AD3d 852, 853-854 [2007]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are not properly before this Court.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 1018, 10 N.Y.S.3d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flushing-savings-bank-fsb-v-toju-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack