You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that Supreme Court in this foreclosure action should not have, sua sponte, revoked the previous acceleration of the debt because plaintiff did not request that relief:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have revoked the previous acceleration of the mortgage debt and directed that the mortgage remain an installment contract, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not seek such relief in its motion or cross-move for it in response to the defendant’s cross motion … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Salko, 2020 NY Slip Op 00566, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS DRIVER RESPONDED REASONABLY UPON HEARING THE SIREN OF A FIRE TRUCK APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF DELIVERY OR MAILING OF THE SUMMONS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH DEPRIVES THE COURT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SERVED PARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.
New Affidavits Properly Allowed in Foreclosure Proceedings; Accuracy of the Execution or Notarizations of the Original Affidavits Could Not Be Confirmed
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO A NONAPPEALING PARTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE UCC CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF POSSESSION OF A LOST NOTE WERE NOT MET; PLAINTIFF BANK THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER SUCH THAT THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION WAS LIABLE FOR... ALTHOUGH THE CITY GAVE A PERMIT TO A BUS COMPANY TO USE A PARKING LOT, THE CITY...