Stevens v. Dogoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevens v. Dogoli

166 A.D.2d 884, 560 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12110

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 884 (Stevens v. Dogoli) 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

Stevens v. Dogoli, 166 A.D.2d 884, 560 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant and judgment granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing their complaint. They sought a declaration that the bond and mortgage given to defendant had been paid in full. The bond and mortgage superseded an earlier purchase contract (77 NY Jur 2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 79), which stated an amount for final payment. No final amount was included in the bond and mortgage, although the principal amount, interest rate, term, and monthly payment remained the same. The monthly payments required by both documents were insufficient to pay in full the accrued interest on the debt, and the principal was never reduced by the periodic payments. The language in the bond and mortgage is unambiguous and controlling (see, Cowper Co. v CDC-Troy, Inc., 50 AD2d 1076), and provides that payments shall be applied first to interest. Therefore, the order appealed from is modified to the extent that we declare that plaintiffs are not entitled to a discharge of the mortgage based on payments made to date. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant and judgment granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing their complaint. They sought a declaration that the bond and mortgage given to defendant had been paid in full. The bond and mortgage superseded an earlier purchase contract (77 NY Jur 2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 79), which stated an amount for final payment. No final amount was included in the bond and mortgage, although the principal amount, interest rate, term, and monthly payment remained the same. The monthly payments required by both documents were insufficient to pay in full the accrued interest on the debt, and the principal was never reduced by the periodic payments. The language in the bond and mortgage is unambiguous and controlling (see, Cowper Co. v CDC-Troy, Inc., 50 AD2d 1076), and provides that payments shall be applied first to interest. Therefore, the order appealed from is modified to the extent that we declare that plaintiffs are not entitled to a discharge of the mortgage based on payments made to date. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 884, 560 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-dogoli-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack