Fannie Mae v. 133 Mgt., LLC
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Adrian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Tovar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Min Young You (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v. Gonzalez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Muriqi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Paniagua (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lafata (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. Kropp-Somoza (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hochstrasser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Rashed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Pennymac Corp. v. Holcomb (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. Krakoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Vaswani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- 21st Mtge. Corp. v. Osorio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 133 Management, LLC, and Yuda J. Furth appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated December 21, 2012, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and to strike their answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the contention of the defendants 133 Management, LLC, and Yuda J. Furth (hereinafter together the Management defendants), the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them and to strike their answer. The plaintiff established, prima facie, that, as set forth in the provisions of the mortgage, it was not required to give the Management defendants notice of their default or the plaintiffs intent to accelerate the debt (see Charter One Bank, FSB v Leone, 45 AD3d 958 [2007]; Long Is. Sav. Bank of Centereach, F.S.B. v Denkensohn, 222 AD2d 659 [1995]). Moreover, the plaintiffs commencement of the action and filing of a notice of pendency constituted a valid election to accelerate the maturity of the debt (see Charter One Bank, FSB v Leone, 45 AD3d at 958). In opposition, the Management defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The Management defendants’ remaining contentions are either academic or without merit.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.