Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Harry KATZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EAST-VILLE REALTY CO., Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered April 3, 1997, to the extent it granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 12, 1997, which, insofar as appealable, granted plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue only to the extent of reducing the amount of the sanctions previously imposed, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from that part of the order entered April 3, 1997, addressed to the imposition of sanctions, unanimously dismissed, as superseded by the appeal from the order entered on or about August 12, 1997.
Plaintiff's attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation in law or fact, and the IAS court's dismissal of the foreclosure action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) was, accordingly, appropriate (see, Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92). Dismissal was also warranted by reason of plaintiff's failure to join the party to whom he assigned the mortgage and who, he concedes, possesses a security interest in the property (see, CPLR 3211[a] [10] ).
We see no reason to disturb the court's imposition of sanctions upon plaintiff, an attorney, and his counsel, given the patently frivolous nature of plaintiff's foreclosure claim. Absent a conspicuous modification of existing law, the claim was clearly not viable (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1] ).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 30, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)