Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fleurant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fleurant

2017 NY Slip Op 3553, 150 A.D.3d 790, 51 N.Y.S.3d 423

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

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket2015-01646

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3553 (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fleurant) 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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fleurant, 2017 NY Slip Op 3553, 150 A.D.3d 790, 51 N.Y.S.3d 423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Marie-Ange Fleurant, also known as Marie Ange Fleurant, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered January 26, 2015, as denied those branches of her motion which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, and for an award of $6 million in damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by the defendant Marie-Ange Fleurant, also known as Marie Ange Fleurant (hereinafter the defendant). In an order dated July 12, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and an order of reference, and, thereafter, upon a second motion of the plaintiff, issued a judgment of foreclosure and sale, dated April 16, 2014. The defendant failed to appeal from either the order or the judgment but, instead, approximately seven months later, moved by order to show cause, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, and for an award of $6 million in damages. The court denied those branches of the motion, and the defendant appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of law of the case. Although this Court is not bound by the law of the case doctrine, and may consider the defendant’s motion on the merits (see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214, 218-219 [2002]; Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc. v 83-17 Broadway Corp., 126 AD3d 752, 754-755 [2015]; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 AD3d 799, 800 [2015]; Romagnolo v Pandolfini, 75 AD3d 632, 634 [2010]), the defendant’s contentions are without merit.

Eng, P.J., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, 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 Marie-Ange Fleurant, also known as Marie Ange Fleurant, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered January 26, 2015, as denied those branches of her motion which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, and for an award of $6 million in damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by the defendant Marie-Ange Fleurant, also known as Marie Ange Fleurant (hereinafter the defendant). In an order dated July 12, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and an order of reference, and, thereafter, upon a second motion of the plaintiff, issued a judgment of foreclosure and sale, dated April 16, 2014. The defendant failed to appeal from either the order or the judgment but, instead, approximately seven months later, moved by order to show cause, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, and for an award of $6 million in damages. The court denied those branches of the motion, and the defendant appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of law of the case. Although this Court is not bound by the law of the case doctrine, and may consider the defendant’s motion on the merits (see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214, 218-219 [2002]; Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc. v 83-17 Broadway Corp., 126 AD3d 752, 754-755 [2015]; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v North Shore Signature Homes, Inc., 125 AD3d 799, 800 [2015]; Romagnolo v Pandolfini, 75 AD3d 632, 634 [2010]), the defendant’s contentions are without merit.

Eng, P.J., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3553, 150 A.D.3d 790, 51 N.Y.S.3d 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-fleurant-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack