Lovett, LLC v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovett, LLC v. Brown

121 A.D.3d 1055, 995 N.Y.S.2d 217

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

Docket2013-03994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 1055 (Lovett, LLC v. Brown) 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

Lovett, LLC v. Brown, 121 A.D.3d 1055, 995 N.Y.S.2d 217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*1056 In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 10, 2013, as, after a hearing, determined that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of only $10,000.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by increasing the principal sum that the plaintiff is entitled to from $10,000 to $20,119.78; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the defendant Doris Brown, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

This action stems from a retail installment contract for certain home improvements which was secured by a mortgage on real property. The plaintiff, as assignee of the mortgage, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage. After a hearing, the Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000. The plaintiff appeals, contending that the judgment is inadequate.

We agree with the plaintiffs contention that the retail installment contract at issue was ratified since payments were made pursuant to that contract for nine years without protest (see Rio v Rio, 110 AD3d 1051, 1054 [2013]; Edison Stone Corp. v 42nd St. Dev. Corp., 145 AD2d 249, 253 [1989]). Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated that, pursuant to the contract, it was entitled to a judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of $20,119.78 (see Cadle Co. II, Inc. v McLean, 42 AD3d 509, 510-511 [2007]). The plaintiff also was entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9%. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the calculation of the interest due and the entry of an appropriate judgment thereafter.

Rivera, J.E, Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ, concur.

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

*1056 In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 10, 2013, as, after a hearing, determined that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of only $10,000.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by increasing the principal sum that the plaintiff is entitled to from $10,000 to $20,119.78; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the defendant Doris Brown, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

This action stems from a retail installment contract for certain home improvements which was secured by a mortgage on real property. The plaintiff, as assignee of the mortgage, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage. After a hearing, the Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000. The plaintiff appeals, contending that the judgment is inadequate.

We agree with the plaintiffs contention that the retail installment contract at issue was ratified since payments were made pursuant to that contract for nine years without protest (see Rio v Rio, 110 AD3d 1051, 1054 [2013]; Edison Stone Corp. v 42nd St. Dev. Corp., 145 AD2d 249, 253 [1989]). Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated that, pursuant to the contract, it was entitled to a judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of $20,119.78 (see Cadle Co. II, Inc. v McLean, 42 AD3d 509, 510-511 [2007]). The plaintiff also was entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9%. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the calculation of the interest due and the entry of an appropriate judgment thereafter.

Rivera, J.E, Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 1055, 995 N.Y.S.2d 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovett-llc-v-brown-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack