From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Big Chief Lewis, Inc. v. Stim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1984
99 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

January 16, 1984


In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated March 23, 1983, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as time barred. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the action granted. The mortgage in this case was due and payable on December 31, 1967. The Statute of Limitations expired six years later, on December 31, 1973 (CPLR 213, subd 4). Although plaintiff asserts that two payments were made in 1981 toward the outstanding interest, there is no claim or evidence that these payments were made by defendants or their predecessor in interest. There is also no claim that defendants or their predecessor ever made any payments of interest or principal on the mortgage. Any payments made by a third party in this case could not, as a matter of law, have revived defendants' obligation under the mortgage (see General Obligations Law, § 17-107; see, also, Roth v Michelson, 55 N.Y.2d 278). Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment must be granted, and the action dismissed. Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Big Chief Lewis, Inc. v. Stim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1984
99 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Big Chief Lewis, Inc. v. Stim

Case Details

Full title:BIG CHIEF LEWIS, INC., Respondent, v. JOSEPH D. STIM et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 16, 1984

Citations

99 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Crawford

No such showing was made here. The payment history did not show that the payments were made by Mr. Crawford…

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Martin

Here, because the plaintiff asserts that the payment was made as a condition to receiving an extension of a…