Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Bartlett
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Tribeca Lending Corp. v Bartlett
2026 NY Slip Op 03092
May 14, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tribeca Lending Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Gregory M. Bartlett, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: May 14, 2026
Index No. 105275/07|Appeal No. 6639|Case No. 2025-07134|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Gesmer, Rosado, JJ.
Gregory M. Bartlett, appellant pro se.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Westbury (Joseph F. Batista of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Suzanne Adams, J.), entered May 9, 2025, which denied defendant's letter application for leave to file a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
The letter of denial, which was in response to defendant's letter to the Administrative Judge, is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made upon notice (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; Djeddah v Williams, 134 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015]). We decline to exercise our discretion to deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 14, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Tribeca Lending Corp. v Bartlett
2026 NY Slip Op 03092
May 14, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tribeca Lending Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Gregory M. Bartlett, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: May 14, 2026
Index No. 105275/07|Appeal No. 6639|Case No. 2025-07134|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Gesmer, Rosado, JJ.
Gregory M. Bartlett, appellant pro se.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Westbury (Joseph F. Batista of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Suzanne Adams, J.), entered May 9, 2025, which denied defendant's letter application for leave to file a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
The letter of denial, which was in response to defendant's letter to the Administrative Judge, is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made upon notice (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; Djeddah v Williams, 134 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015]). We decline to exercise our discretion to deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 14, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Tribeca Lending Corp. v Bartlett
2026 NY Slip Op 03092
May 14, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tribeca Lending Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Gregory M. Bartlett, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: May 14, 2026
Index No. 105275/07|Appeal No. 6639|Case No. 2025-07134|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Gesmer, Rosado, JJ.
Gregory M. Bartlett, appellant pro se.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Westbury (Joseph F. Batista of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Suzanne Adams, J.), entered May 9, 2025, which denied defendant's letter application for leave to file a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
The letter of denial, which was in response to defendant's letter to the Administrative Judge, is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made upon notice (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; Djeddah v Williams, 134 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015]). We decline to exercise our discretion to deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 14, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.