From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Union Realty Partners, Ltd. v. Menicucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 24, 2000

March 17, 2000

In an action to recover on a guaranty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), entered March 4, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Doran Chinitz, LLC, Rye, N.Y. (Ross M. Chinitz of counsel), for appellant.

Menicucci Castellano, Staten Island, N.Y. (Pamela I. Tillman of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, as an individual and as a member of a limited partnership, executed a guaranty in April 1988 in connection with a mortgage and note. The mortgage and note were secured by real property located in New Jersey. Under the terms of the mortgage and note and the guaranty, the defendant agreed to make monthly payments to Community National Bank and Trust Company of New York (hereinafter Community National) in return for a loan. The defendant defaulted on the note, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the property was ultimately sold at a foreclosure sale. No motion for a deficiency judgment was filed. Subsequent to the foreclosure sale, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter FDIC) was named liquidating agent of all assets of Community National. The plaintiff, Union Realty Partners, Ltd., purchased the guaranty from the FDIC and ultimately commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract based on the defendant's failure to make payments under the guaranty.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was not timely commenced under RPAPL 1371 Real Prop. Acts.. Under the interest-analysis approach, the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation will be applied (see, Leasing Ser. Corp. v. Diamond Timber, 559 F. Supp. 972, affd 729 F.2d 1442;Haag v. Barnes, 9 N.Y.2d 554;Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. De Cresenzo, 207 A.D.2d 823). Here, it is clear that New York has the greatest interest in this litigation. Therefore, RPAPL 1371 Real Prop. Acts. applies, and the plaintiff's failure to file a motion for a deficiency judgment within 90 days of the date of the consummation of the foreclosure sale bars it from proceeding with this action.

THOMPSON, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Union Realty Partners, Ltd. v. Menicucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Union Realty Partners, Ltd. v. Menicucci

Case Details

Full title:UNION REALTY PARTNERS, LTD., Appellant, v. MICHAEL MENICUCCI, respondent

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

Date published: Mar 17, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 611

Citing Cases

Int'l Union of Bricklayers v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

These cases are not inconsistent with the authority, cited above, that the wording of the choice of law…

Home Court Dev. Corp. v. K&C Beauty Supply Inc.

In order to find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that a lawful order of…