JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. John

189 A.D.3d 1568

135 N.Y.S.3d 291 (Mem)

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, respondent,

v.Kunjamma C. JOHN, appellant, et al., defendants.

2017–00552

2017–00553

2017–05874

Index No. 7431/11

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—September 11, 2020

December 30, 2020

Hogan & Cassell, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Michael Cassell of counsel), for appellant.

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jackie Halpern Weinstein and Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Kunjamma C. John appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), entered October 25, 2016, (2) an order of the same court, also entered October 25, 2016, and (3) an order of the same court, entered April 21, 2017. The first order entered October 25, 2016, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Kunjamma C. John and for an order of reference, and denied the cross motion of the defendant Kunjamma C. John, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate her default in answering the complaint and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate her default in answering the complaint and pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for leave to serve a late answer. The second order entered October 25, 2016, insofar as appealed from, granted and denied the same relief, and appointed a referee. The order dated entered April 21, 2017, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Kunjamma C. John which was for leave to renew her opposition to the plaintiff's motion and her cross motion.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeals from the two orders entered October 25, 2016, and from the order entered April 21, 2017, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the amended judgment of foreclosure and sale in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 [1976] ). The issues raised on the appeals are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment of foreclosure and sale, in U.S. Rof III Legal Title Trust 2015–1 v. John (––– A.D.3d ––––,...