JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Carl
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Carl
2026 NY Slip Op 02832
May 6, 2026
Appellate Division, Second 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.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., respondent,
v
Bernard J. Carl, etc., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on May 6, 2026
2020-09782, 2021-00027, (Index No. 609317/18)
Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Francesca E. Connolly
Lourdes M. Ventura
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Capuder Fazio Giacoia LLP, New York, NY (Douglas Capuder of counsel), for appellants.
Thompson Coburn Hahn & Hessen LLP, New York, NY (Zachary G. Newman and Jose A. Fernandez of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Bernard J. Carl and Joan T. Carl appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Michael A. Gajdos, Jr., J.), both dated October 15, 2020. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, to strike their answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, and for an order of reference, and denied those defendants' cross-motion to compel discovery and for leave to amend their answer. The second order granted the same relief to the plaintiff and appointed a referee to ascertain and compute the amount due to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeals from the orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Carl, ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2023-08162; decided herewith]).
LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
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
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Carl
2026 NY Slip Op 02832
May 6, 2026
Appellate Division, Second 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.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., respondent,
v
Bernard J. Carl, etc., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on May 6, 2026
2020-09782, 2021-00027, (Index No. 609317/18)
Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Francesca E. Connolly
Lourdes M. Ventura
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Capuder Fazio Giacoia LLP, New York, NY (Douglas Capuder of counsel), for appellants.
Thompson Coburn Hahn & Hessen LLP, New York, NY (Zachary G. Newman and Jose A. Fernandez of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Bernard J. Carl and Joan T. Carl appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Michael A. Gajdos, Jr., J.), both dated October 15, 2020. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, to strike their answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, and for an order of reference, and denied those defendants' cross-motion to compel discovery and for leave to amend their answer. The second order granted the same relief to the plaintiff and appointed a referee to ascertain and compute the amount due to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeals from the orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Carl, ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2023-08162; decided herewith]).
LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
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
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Carl
2026 NY Slip Op 02832
May 6, 2026
Appellate Division, Second 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.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., respondent,
v
Bernard J. Carl, etc., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on May 6, 2026
2020-09782, 2021-00027, (Index No. 609317/18)
Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Francesca E. Connolly
Lourdes M. Ventura
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Capuder Fazio Giacoia LLP, New York, NY (Douglas Capuder of counsel), for appellants.
Thompson Coburn Hahn & Hessen LLP, New York, NY (Zachary G. Newman and Jose A. Fernandez of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Bernard J. Carl and Joan T. Carl appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Michael A. Gajdos, Jr., J.), both dated October 15, 2020. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, to strike their answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, and for an order of reference, and denied those defendants' cross-motion to compel discovery and for leave to amend their answer. The second order granted the same relief to the plaintiff and appointed a referee to ascertain and compute the amount due to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeals from the orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Carl, ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2023-08162; decided herewith]).
LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
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.