From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moweta v. Citywide Home Improvements, Queens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1999
267 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted November 29, 1999

December 27, 1999

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated June 9, 1998, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation and Chrysler First Financial Services Corporation of America pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) which was to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Lester and Fontanetta, Garden City, N.Y. (Melissa Levine of counsel), for appellants.

Miller Wrubel, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Charles R. Jacob III of counsel), for respondents.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined, based on the documentary evidence (see, CPLR 3211[a][[1]), that the plaintiffs ratified the subject contract, note, and mortgage by making payments thereon to the respondents for five years without protest, and in so doing, waived all claims sounding in fraud (see,Eldon Group Am. v. Equiptex Indus. Prods. Corp., 236 A.D.2d 329; Paramount Ins. Co. v. Brown, 205 A.D.2d 464, 465 ; Lindenwood Dev. Corp. v. Levine, 178 A.D.2d 633 ; Edison Stone Corp. v. 42nd St. Dev. Corp., 145 A.D.2d 249 ).

The documentary evidence also established that the plaintiffs and the respondent NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation (hereinafter NationsCredit) reached an accord and satisfaction when NationsCredit accepted an offer, made by the plaintiffs through their attorney, to settle the plaintiffs' account for $5,000 (see, Congregation Chachmei Sefarad v. Dickman, 198 A.D.2d 395;Couri v. Westchester Country Club, 186 A.D.2d 712, 714 ).

In light of the foregoing, the court properly granted that branch of the respondents' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) which was to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

MANGANO, P.J., THOMPSON, ALTMAN, and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Moweta v. Citywide Home Improvements, Queens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1999
267 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Moweta v. Citywide Home Improvements, Queens

Case Details

Full title:DANIELLA MOWETA, et al., appellants, v. CITYWIDE HOME IMPROVEMENTS OF…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
700 N.Y.S.2d 845

Citing Cases

Wilmington Trust Co. v. Hurtado

However, the defense of standing may be waived by a mortgagor who negotiates and executes a loan modification…

Wilmington Trust Co. v. Hurtado

However, the defense of standing may be waived by a mortgagor who negotiates and executes a loan modification…