| Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03995 [118 AD3d 687] |
| June 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Plaza Equities, LLC, et al.,Respondents, v Mary M. Lamberti, Appellant, et al.,Defendants. |
Michael T. Lamberti, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y., for appellant.
Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Scott B. Fisher and Christopher E.Vatter of counsel), for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., as successor in interest torespondent Greenpoint Mortgage Corp.
Lawrence & Walsh, P.C., Hempstead, N.Y. (Eric P. Wainer of counsel), forrespondent Plaza Equities, LLC.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mary M. Lamberti appeals, aslimited by her brief and as further limited by a stipulation dated February 12, 2013, fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered March12, 2012, as denied those branches of her motion which were for leave to renew andreargue those branches of her prior cross motion which were, inter alia, to dismiss thecomplaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) insofar as asserted against her for lack ofstanding, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated August 19,2010.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered March 12, 2012, as deniedthat branch of the motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal liesfrom an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered March 12, 2012, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; andit is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.
In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff Greenpoint Mortgage Corp. wasthe holder of a note and a mortgage when it commenced this action. Thereafter, themortgage and the note were assigned several times, and subsequently were assigned tothe plaintiff Plaza Equities, LLC (hereinafter Plaza) (see Greenpoint Mtge. Corp. v Lamberti, 94 AD3d 815[2012]). The defendant Mary M. Lamberti cross-moved, among other things, to dismissthe complaint insofar as asserted against her, contending, inter alia, that Plaza lackedstanding to pursue the action. In an order dated October 13, 2010, the Supreme Courtdenied Lamberti's cross motion, and Lamberti moved for leave to renew and reargue hercross motion. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied [*2]Lamberti's motion for leave to renew and reargue.
As the Supreme Court correctly pointed out, Lamberti's papers on her motion forleave to renew and reargue were insufficient, as they did not include a complete set of thepapers originally submitted on her cross motion (see Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158, 180[2012]; cf. Fernald v Vinci,13 AD3d 333, 334 [2004]). In any event, the Supreme Court did not improvidentlyexercise its discretion in denying that branch of Lamberti's motion which was for leave torenew, as Lamberti failed to demonstrate that the additional facts she submitted wouldhave changed the court's determination denying those branches of her cross motionwhich were to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) insofar as assertedagainst her (see Jovanovic vJovanovic, 96 AD3d 1019, 1020-1021 [2012]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vCaro, 82 AD3d 880, 882 [2011]).
Lamberti's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Hall andMaltese, JJ., concur.