US Bank N.A. v. Levy

2020 NY Slip Op 3044, 183 A.D.3d 924, 122 N.Y.S.3d 917
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 27, 2020
DocketIndex No. 612762/17
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 3044 (US Bank N.A. v. Levy) 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
US Bank N.A. v. Levy, 2020 NY Slip Op 3044, 183 A.D.3d 924, 122 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

US Bank N.A. v Levy (2020 NY Slip Op 03044)
US Bank N.A. v Levy
2020 NY Slip Op 03044
Decided on May 27, 2020
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 May 27, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2018-08894
(Index No. 612762/17)

[*1]US Bank National Association, etc., respondent,

v

Bina Levy, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.


Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carrone, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Christopher A. Gorman of counsel), for appellants.

Gross Polowy, LLC, Westbury, NY (Stephen J. Vargas of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Bina Levy and Isaac Levy appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), entered May 22, 2018. The order denied those defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the defendants Bina Levy and Isaac Levy (hereinafter together the defendants) sustained their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action had expired (see Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v Gambino, 153 AD3d 1232, 1234; see also Albertina Realty Co. v Rosbro Realty Corp., 258 NY 472, 476), the plaintiff, in opposition, raised a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable (see Milone v US Bank N.A., 164 AD3d 145, 153-154).

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

CHAMBERS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Albertina Realty Co. v. Rosbro Realty Corp.
180 N.E. 176 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Gambino
2017 NY Slip Op 6428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 3044, 183 A.D.3d 924, 122 N.Y.S.3d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-na-v-levy-nyappdiv-2020.