State of N.Y. Mtge. Agency v. Costanza
This text of 2023 NY Slip Op 02137 (State of N.Y. Mtge. Agency v. Costanza) 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.
Opinion
| State of N.Y. Mtge. Agency v Costanza |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 02137 |
| Decided on April 26, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on April 26, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
2020-01873
(Index No. 601636/15)
v
Michael Costanza, appellant, et al., defendants.
Law Office of Maggio & Meyer, PLLC, Bohemia, NY (Holly C. Meyer of counsel), for appellant.
Schiller, Knapp, Lefkowitz & Hertzel, LLP, Latham, NY (Gregory J. Sanda of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Michael Costanza appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Howard H. Heckman, Jr., J.), entered December 4, 2019. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to confirm a referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, confirmed the referee's report, and directed the sale of the subject property.
ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Michael Costanza (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage on certain property located in Bellport. After the defendant joined issue, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike his answer, and for an order of reference. By order dated November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the plaintiff's motion, struck the defendant's answer, and referred the matter to a referee to ascertain and compute the amount due to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. By order and judgment of foreclosure and sale entered December 4, 2019, the court, among other things, granted the plaintiff's motion, confirmed the referee's report, and directed the sale of the subject property. The defendant appeals.
The defendant's contentions, that the plaintiff's submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment were insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, its compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provisions of the mortgage, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Glasgow, 206 AD3d 790; Fnbn I, LLC v DiTomasso, 199 AD3d 656, 657-658).
IANNACCI, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 NY Slip Op 02137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-ny-mtge-agency-v-costanza-nyappdiv-2023.