| Sudit v Roth |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06292 [98 AD3d 1106] |
| September 26, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vladimir Sudit, Doing Business as VS International,Respondent, v Sara Roth, Also Known as Chaya Roth, et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1] Joseph J. Haspel, Goshen, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sara Roth, also known as Chaya Roth,and Moshe Roth appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated April 14, 2011, as granted that branch of the plaintiff'smotion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law byproducing a so-ordered stipulation setting forth the appellants' obligation arising from certainunderlying mortgages and agreements, and proof of the appellants' default (see Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d1031, 1032 [2010]). In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.Contrary to the appellants' contention, the stipulation did not constitute a novation, as it did notextinguish the appellants' prior obligations (see Rockwood v Vicarious Visions, Inc., 44 AD3d 1229, 1230[2007]; Albano v Alba Carting Co., 251 AD2d 273 [1998]).
The appellants' remaining contention set forth in their reply brief is raised for the first timeon appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court (see Charles v Broad St. Dev., LLC, 95 AD3d 814 [2012]; Yeshiva Chasdei Torah v Dell Equity,LLC, 90 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion whichwas for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants. Rivera,J.P., Eng, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.