Opinion
11727N Index 32090/16E
06-25-2020
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dany DALAL, et al., Defendants, Link Point Realty, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
Warner & Scheuerman, New York (Jonathan D. Warner of counsel), for appellant. Fein, Such & Crane, LLP, Westbury (Michael S. Hanusek of counsel), for respondent.
Warner & Scheuerman, New York (Jonathan D. Warner of counsel), for appellant.
Fein, Such & Crane, LLP, Westbury (Michael S. Hanusek of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered July 10, 2019, which denied defendant Link Point Realty's motion to renew the part of the prior order (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered on or about February 14, 2017, which denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant did not demonstrate the change in the law necessary to support a motion for renewal (see Jackson v. Westminster House Owners Inc. , 52 A.D.3d 404, 405, 861 N.Y.S.2d 315 [1st Dept. 2008] ). The decision relied on by defendant, Milone v. U.S. Bank N.A. , 164 A.D.3d 145, 83 N.Y.S.3d 524 (2d Dept. 2018), lv. denied 34 N.Y.3d 1009, 115 N.Y.S.3d 205, 138 N.E.3d 1088 (2019), simply reiterated the law that a de-acceleration letter must be clear in its intent to de-accelerate the loan if it is to avoid being deemed pretextual. Consistent with Milone Supreme Court held that the notice sent by the loan servicer to inform the mortgagor that the loan, which had been previously accelerated by plaintiff's predecessor in interest, was de-accelerated and reinstated as an installment loan, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff brought its foreclosure action within the six-year limitations period. Thus, the notice was sufficient to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment on limitations grounds.