Summary
finding that the complaint stated a claim for fraudulent inducement, which was not duplicative of the plaintiff's claim for breach of the guarantee, because the plaintiff did not merely allege that the defendant misrepresented the intent to perform on the guarantee, which would render the fraud claim duplicative; but also alleged that the defendant misrepresented his ability to perform
Summary of this case from Shetel Indus. v. Adin Dental Implant Sys.Opinion
9808 Index 380832/11
07-09-2019
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Dario REYES, Defendant–Appellant, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Defendants.
David A. Blythewood, Mineola, for appellant.
David A. Blythewood, Mineola, for appellant.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Singh, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered on or about July 21, 2017, which denied defendant Reyes's motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered January 25, 2017, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
After defendant's motion to vacate was denied, plaintiff moved to discontinue the action, vacate the notice of pendency, and vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale in its entirety, and the motion was granted by order, same court (Doris Gonzalez, J.), entered February 6, 2019, of which we take judicial notice (see Matter of Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Archibald, 124 A.D.3d 480, 481, 2 N.Y.S.3d 92 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Accordingly, this appeal is moot (see Reyes v. Sequeira, 64 A.D.3d 500, 505, 883 N.Y.S.2d 494 [1st Dept. 2009], citing Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).