Opinion
March 15, 1971
In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiff's motion granted. In our opinion, the motion papers raise no factual issues and establish that the default in payment of taxes was willfully continued after timely and clear notice that plaintiff would require compliance with the terms of the mortgage. Under the circumstances, it was not oppressive or in bad faith for plaintiff to accelerate the maturity date of the mortgage loan, as it was entitled to do, or to resort to the remedy which the law provides against a mortgagor in default. While plaintiff's prior indulgence of late tax payments might reasonably have fostered a sense of carelessness by the defendant mortgagors, the letters of April 29, 1970, May 12, 1970, and particularly that of May 26, 1970, should have alerted any prudent person that, in this instance, plaintiff was going to insist on compliance with the agreement. Despite those unequivocal warnings, the mortgagors made no effort to comply until almost two months after plaintiff had accelerated the maturity date of the loan and had commenced this action. Whatever economic disadvantage the mortgagors had in subsequent negotiations was of their own making (cf. Broadway Sav. Bank v. Rosenblat, 32 A.D.2d 773). Any sympathy which the mortgagors' situation might arouse cannot be permitted to undermine the stability of contractual obligations (cf. First Nat. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 N.Y.2d 630, 637-638; Graf v. Hope Bldg. Corp., 254 N.Y. 1, 4-5). Munder, Acting P.J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.