GRP Loan, LLC v. Smith

137 A.D.3d 543, 26 N.Y.S.3d 689

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered January 14, 2015, which denied the part of nonparty appellant’s motion seeking to cancel the notices of pendency, and granted the part seeking to reargue her motion to vacate a September 2010 judgment of foreclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly treated appellant’s motion as one for reargument, since no new facts were set forth that could not have been presented on the initial motion, and, in any event, no explanation was offered for not having presented the facts previously. Although the court stated that it was denying the motion, it effectively granted the motion by addressing the merits, correctly holding that appellant’s arguments were precluded by collateral estoppel, since they could have been raised on the prior motion. Contrary to appellant’s premise, successive notices of pendency are authorized in a foreclosure action, the invalidity or expiration of prior notices notwithstanding (see CPLR 6516 [a]).

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.R, Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ.