Williams v. Belova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Belova

121 A.D.3d 572, 993 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2014

Docket13277 8006/07

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 572 (Williams v. Belova) 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

Williams v. Belova, 121 A.D.3d 572, 993 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on April 6, 2012, which, inter alia, denied defendant America’s Wholesale Lender’s motion for a money judgment against plaintiff, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting said defendant a money judgment in the amount of $63,099.40, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The so-ordered stipulation, dated January 14, 2008, executed by counsel, constitutes a binding contract which requires plaintiff to make monthly use and occupancy payments to America’s Wholesale Lender (AWL), which lender issued two mortgages against property owned and/or occupied by plaintiff (see CPLR 2104). While these payments were to be made to AWL’s counsel, there were no restrictions on AWL’s use of the moneys, which were not required to be placed in escrow. To the contrary, the payments were to be made “on account of the mortgage indebtedness.”

*573 As plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the stipulation, or deny that the stipulation unequivocally required him to make monthly use and occupancy payments, he provides no basis to avoid the ramifications of noncompliance (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]). However, the court correctly found that plaintiffs obligation to make such payments began with execution of the stipulation and was not retroactive.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on April 6, 2012, which, inter alia, denied defendant America’s Wholesale Lender’s motion for a money judgment against plaintiff, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting said defendant a money judgment in the amount of $63,099.40, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The so-ordered stipulation, dated January 14, 2008, executed by counsel, constitutes a binding contract which requires plaintiff to make monthly use and occupancy payments to America’s Wholesale Lender (AWL), which lender issued two mortgages against property owned and/or occupied by plaintiff (see CPLR 2104). While these payments were to be made to AWL’s counsel, there were no restrictions on AWL’s use of the moneys, which were not required to be placed in escrow. To the contrary, the payments were to be made “on account of the mortgage indebtedness.”

*573 As plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the stipulation, or deny that the stipulation unequivocally required him to make monthly use and occupancy payments, he provides no basis to avoid the ramifications of noncompliance (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]). However, the court correctly found that plaintiffs obligation to make such payments began with execution of the stipulation and was not retroactive.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 572, 993 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-belova-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack