You are here: / / CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE AND VACATION OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY...
, ,

CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE AND VACATION OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR A COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501, NOT, AS HERE, BY A CROSS-MOTION; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s cross-motion to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) should not have been granted because that relief must be sought in an action or counterclaim, not by motion. The issue was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the cross motion which was pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage and vacate the notice of pendency, since relief pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) must be sought in an action or counterclaim and not by motion … . Although the plaintiff raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court … . U.S. Bank N.A. v O’Rourke, 2022 NY Slip Op 05558, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Cancellation and discharge of a mortgage and vacation of a notice of pendency pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) must be sought by an action or a counterclaim, not, as in this case, by a cross-motion. The issue may be raised for the first time on appeal because it is a matter of law and could not have been avoided had it been raised in Supreme Court.

 

You might also like
Single Step Was Open and Obvious and Not Inherently Dangerous
A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED DRUGS TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR IN THE PAST; THE 15 POINT ASSESSMENT UNDER RISK FACTOR 11 WAS THEREFORE ELIMINATED, REDUCING THE RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT). ​
HANDWRITTEN PROVISION OF A LETTER OF INTENT CONTROLS, THE LETTER OF INTENT IS NOT A BINDING CONTRACT, BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THE ABSENCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BENEFIT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS UNIDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
Challenges for Cause Should Have Been Granted 
PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
PURSUANT TO THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EPIDURAL INJECTIONS WERE DONE NEGLIGENTLY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SIGNED A CONSENT FORM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (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

ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS...