Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Shields
2014 NY Slip Op 02254 [116 AD3d 653]
April 2, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 28, 2014


Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,Appellant,
v
Kevin Michael Shields, Respondent, et al.,Defendants.

[*1]Houser & Allison, APC, New York, N.Y. (Danielle P. Light of counsel), forappellant.

Doyle & Broumand, LLP, Bronx, N.Y. (Heidi Broumand of counsel), forrespondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered October 23, 2012, which grantedthe motion of the defendant Kevin Michael Shields to vacate a judgment of foreclosureand sale of the same court entered March 24, 2010, upon his default in appearing oranswering the complaint, to cancel a notice of pendency, and to dismiss the complaintinsofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of thedefendant Kevin Michael Shields to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale enteredMarch 24, 2010, to cancel the notice of pendency, and to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against him is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage. Upon the default of thedefendant Kevin Michael Shields in appearing or answering the complaint, the SupremeCourt entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale on March 24, 2010.

The Supreme Court should have denied Shields's motion to vacate the judgment offoreclosure and sale, to cancel the notice of pendency, and to dismiss the complaintinsofar as asserted against him. Contrary to Shields's contention, the plaintiff's allegedfailure to satisfy a condition precedent in the mortgage by failing to provide him with 30days' written notice of his default in making mortgage payments, even if true, did notdeprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to enter the judgment of foreclosure and sale(see Pritchard v Curtis, 101AD3d 1502, 1504-1505 [2012]; Signature Bank v Epstein, 95 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2012]).

Shields's remaining contentions do not provide a basis for vacating the judgment offoreclosure and sale. Rivera, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.