Maple Parkway Associates v. MPA Revival Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maple Parkway Associates v. MPA Revival Realty Corp.

247 A.D.2d 592, 668 N.Y.S.2d 498

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 592 (Maple Parkway Associates v. MPA Revival 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

Maple Parkway Associates v. MPA Revival Realty Corp., 247 A.D.2d 592, 668 N.Y.S.2d 498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In related actions to foreclose a first and second mortgage, respectively, upon real property, (1) Siegfried Schemitsch, Salvatore D’Agostino, Robert W. McErlean, Robert J. McErlean, and Rose Ullrich, defendants in Action No. 1, ap[593]*593peal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated October 17, 1996, as, in effect, denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, (2) Maple Parkway Associates, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment, (3) the plaintiffs in Action No. 2 appeal from so much of an order of the same court, also dated October 17, 1996, as denied their motion for summary judgment, and (4) MPA Revival Realty Corp. and Maple Parkway Associates, the defendants in Action No. 2, cross-appeal from so much of the same order as, in effect, denied their cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are material questions of fact concerning, in Action No. 1, whether the mortgage held by the plaintiff was extinguished by the merger doctrine, and, in Action No. 2, whether the mortgage held by the plaintiffs has priority over a prior mortgage held by the defendant Maple Parkway Associates.

The parties’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In related actions to foreclose a first and second mortgage, respectively, upon real property, (1) Siegfried Schemitsch, Salvatore D’Agostino, Robert W. McErlean, Robert J. McErlean, and Rose Ullrich, defendants in Action No. 1, ap[593]*593peal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated October 17, 1996, as, in effect, denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, (2) Maple Parkway Associates, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment, (3) the plaintiffs in Action No. 2 appeal from so much of an order of the same court, also dated October 17, 1996, as denied their motion for summary judgment, and (4) MPA Revival Realty Corp. and Maple Parkway Associates, the defendants in Action No. 2, cross-appeal from so much of the same order as, in effect, denied their cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are material questions of fact concerning, in Action No. 1, whether the mortgage held by the plaintiff was extinguished by the merger doctrine, and, in Action No. 2, whether the mortgage held by the plaintiffs has priority over a prior mortgage held by the defendant Maple Parkway Associates.

The parties’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 592, 668 N.Y.S.2d 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maple-parkway-associates-v-mpa-revival-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1998.