Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Tabick

193 A.D.3d 950

142 N.Y.S.3d 848 (Mem)

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, respondent,

v.Christopher TABICK, et al., appellants., et al., defendants.

2018–08772

Index No. 509027/14

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

Argued—February 22, 2021

April 21, 2021

The Mortner Law Office, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Moshe Mortner of counsel), for appellants.

McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Margaret S. Stefandl of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Christopher Tabick and Jennifer L. Tabick appeal from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated September 16, 2019. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon two orders of the same court, both dated May 7, 2018, inter alia, granting those branches of the plaintiff's renewed motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Christopher Tabick and Jennifer L. Tabick and for an order of reference, among other things, confirmed the referee's report and directed the sale of the subject property.

ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.

On July 11, 2006, the defendant Christopher Tabick executed a note in favor of First Magnus Financial Corporation in the sum of $1,000,000. The note was secured by a mortgage executed by Christopher Tabick and the defendant Jennifer L. Tabick (hereinafter together the appellants) encumbering certain real property located in Brooklyn. Through a series of assignments, the mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff.

In October 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage against the appellants and others. The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants. In an order dated September 6, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the motion without prejudice to the making of a second motion for the same relief. The plaintiff subsequently moved, among other things, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants and for an order of reference. In two orders, both dated May 7, 2018, the court granted, inter alia, those branches of the plaintiff's renewed motion. In an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale dated September 16, 2019, the court, among other...