From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gro-Wit Cap. v. Obigor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 9, 2009
63 A.D.3d 785 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-10031.

June 9, 2009.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated September 12, 2008, which granted the renewed motion of the defendant David Hosten pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered November 16, 2006, in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the total sum of $305,499.57, and denied its cross motion to approve the entry of that judgment nunc pro tunc.

Benjamin H. Segal, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Firestone Harris, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Edward M. Rappaport and Alan J. Firestone of counsel), for respondent.

Florio, J.P., Miller, Covello and Austin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a prior appeal by the plaintiff in this foreclosure action, this Court reversed an order of the Supreme Court which denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant David Hosten, and granted the motion ( see Gro-Wit Capital, Ltd. v Obigor, LLC, 33 AD3d 859) (hereinafter the prior appeal). Thereafter, without further judicial intervention or approval, the plaintiff secured the entry of a money judgment against Hosten on November 16, 2006. That was improper, as neither this Court's decision and order on the prior appeal, nor any subsequent order of the Supreme Court, awarded the plaintiff that relief.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the renewed motion of the defendant David Hosten to vacate the judgment entered November 16, 2006. Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs cross motion to approve the entry of the judgment nunc pro tunc, since the only relief sought against Hosten was equitable in nature, the plaintiff never sought leave to amend its complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages against Hosten, and the evidence before us does not otherwise demonstrate the plaintiffs entitlement to such damages ( cf. CPLR 3017 [a]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Gro-Wit Cap. v. Obigor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 9, 2009
63 A.D.3d 785 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Gro-Wit Cap. v. Obigor

Case Details

Full title:GRO-WIT CAPITAL, LTD., Appellant, v. OBIGOR, LLC, et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Jun 9, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 785 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4860
880 N.Y.S.2d 505

Citing Cases

Lennard v. Chinkpoo Realty Holding Corp.

Furthermore, the plaintiff did not have standing to maintain an action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL 1501…

Lennard v. Chinkpoo Realty

Furthermore, if, as the plaintiff alleges, Colavolpe did not have an estate or interest in the property, the…