National Heritage Life Insurance v. Hill Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Heritage Life Insurance v. Hill Street Associates

262 A.D.2d 378, 691 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6365

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 7, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Hill Street Associates appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against it and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the four installment payments made by the appellant after January 4, 1992, the date upon which the entire balance of principal and interest on the note and mortgage was due and payable, extended the commencement date for the Statute of Limitations. The payments demonstrated an acknowledgement by the appellant that it still owed outstanding amounts on the note and mortgage, and created an implied promise by the appellant to pay those outstanding amounts (see, General Obligations Law § 17-107; Petito v Piffath, 85 NY2d 1, 8, cert denied 516 US 864; Roth v Michelson, 55 NY2d 278, 281). Thus, because the last payment was made on May 12, 1993, this action, filed on January 26, 1998, was timely.

The parties’ remaining contentions either need not be addressed in light of this determination or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 defendant Hill Street Associates appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against it and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the four installment payments made by the appellant after January 4, 1992, the date upon which the entire balance of principal and interest on the note and mortgage was due and payable, extended the commencement date for the Statute of Limitations. The payments demonstrated an acknowledgement by the appellant that it still owed outstanding amounts on the note and mortgage, and created an implied promise by the appellant to pay those outstanding amounts (see, General Obligations Law § 17-107; Petito v Piffath, 85 NY2d 1, 8, cert denied 516 US 864; Roth v Michelson, 55 NY2d 278, 281). Thus, because the last payment was made on May 12, 1993, this action, filed on January 26, 1998, was timely.

The parties’ remaining contentions either need not be addressed in light of this determination or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

National Heritage Life Insurance v. Hill Street Associates, 262 A.D.2d 378, 691 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

262 A.D.2d 378 (National Heritage Life Insurance v. Hill Street Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related