Friends Realty Associates v. Wells Fargo Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friends Realty Associates v. Wells Fargo Bank

40 A.D.3d 287, 836 N.Y.S.2d 565

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

DecidedMay 8, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 287 (Friends Realty Associates v. Wells Fargo Bank) 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

Friends Realty Associates v. Wells Fargo Bank, 40 A.D.3d 287, 836 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2006, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that plaintiff was not entitled to prepay its loan during the sixth loan year without prepayment consideration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“It has been settled law since the early 19th century that a mortgagor has no right to pay off his obligation prior to its stated maturity date in the absence of a prepayment clause in the mortgage or contrary statutory authority” (Matter of Arthur v Burkich, 131 AD2d 105, 106 [1987]). Because the note here is silent as to prepayment during the sixth loan year, the court did not err in its interpretation that plaintiff/mortgagor did not have an unambiguous right to prepay without penalty.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2006, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that plaintiff was not entitled to prepay its loan during the sixth loan year without prepayment consideration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“It has been settled law since the early 19th century that a mortgagor has no right to pay off his obligation prior to its stated maturity date in the absence of a prepayment clause in the mortgage or contrary statutory authority” (Matter of Arthur v Burkich, 131 AD2d 105, 106 [1987]). Because the note here is silent as to prepayment during the sixth loan year, the court did not err in its interpretation that plaintiff/mortgagor did not have an unambiguous right to prepay without penalty.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 287, 836 N.Y.S.2d 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friends-realty-associates-v-wells-fargo-bank-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack