Sarva v. Chakravorty

34 A.D.3d 438, 826 N.Y.S.2d 74
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 8, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 438 (Sarva v. Chakravorty) 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
Sarva v. Chakravorty, 34 A.D.3d 438, 826 N.Y.S.2d 74 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

[439]*439In an action to recover on a mortgage note, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered January 11, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $196,950.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the record fails to establish a clear and unequivocal acceleration of the mortgage debt by the plaintiffs in this case. While the plaintiff mortgagee Ramesh Sarva testified regarding his belief that he sent a letter to the defendant mortgagor Kamal Chakraverty in June 1988 expressing his desire “to get paid in full,” no such letter was admitted into evidence at trial, and Chakraverty adamantly insisted that he never received the letter or any other communication accelerating the debt. Moreover, it is undisputed that the defendants continued to make, and the plaintiffs continued to accept, periodic installment payments on the note for years after June 1988, thereby negating the contention that the debt had been accelerated. Accordingly, this action to recover on the note was timely commenced within six years after the note matured, and the trial court properly denied the defendants’ application to dismiss the action as time-barred (see CPLR 213 [4]).

The defendants’ remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Sandoval v Juodzevich, 293 AD2d 595 [2002]), and we decline to reach it since the plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to present opposing evidence with regard to the effect of the partial payments made by the defendants (see Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. & Supply Corp., 110 AD2d 757 [1985]; see generally Education Resources Inst., Inc. v Piazza, 17 AD3d 513 [2005]; Costantini v Bimco Indus., 125 AD2d 531 [1986]; Bernstein v Kaplan, 67 AD2d 897 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HSBC Bank USA v. Pantel
173 N.Y.S.3d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Breuer
203 A.D.3d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. King
2021 NY Slip Op 02137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Miss Jones LLC v. Stiles
S.D. New York, 2020
Mejias v. Wells Fargo N.A.
2020 NY Slip Op 4389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Trust v. Barua
2020 NY Slip Op 3095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
MTGLQ Invs., LLP v. Lunder
2020 NY Slip Op 2690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Vitolo
2020 NY Slip Op 2492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Soufer v. Baroukhian
2020 NY Slip Op 2491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Diji v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 7944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Herzl Dev. Group, LLC v. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn.
2019 NY Slip Op 6385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Ahmed
2019 NY Slip Op 5956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
J & JT Holding Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 4366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Maldonado
2019 NY Slip Op 2307 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Dieudonne
2019 NY Slip Op 1732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Sopp
2019 NY Slip Op 1637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Milone v. US Bank Natl. Assn.
2018 NY Slip Op 5760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. MacPherson
56 Misc. 3d 339 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
Costa v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
247 F. Supp. 3d 329 (S.D. New York, 2017)
Puzzuoli v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
55 Misc. 3d 417 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 438, 826 N.Y.S.2d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarva-v-chakravorty-nyappdiv-2006.