Case Name: Indymac Federal Bank, FSB, Appellant, v. Luisa Batista, Respondent, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2012-12-19
Citations: 101 A.D.3d 952
Docket Number: 
Parties: Indymac Federal Bank, FSB, Appellant, v Luisa Batista, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 952–952

Head Matter:
Indymac Federal Bank, FSB, Appellant, v Luisa Batista, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
[956 NYS2d 181]

Opinion:
Contrary to the contention of the defendant Luisa Batista, the record does not reflect that the order appealed from was entered as the result of a settlement, which would require dismissal of the appeal (see CPLR 2104; Matter of Martinez v Martinez, 15 AD3d 663 [2005]). Since the order appealed from was not the result of a settlement, and the only basis for, inter alia, declaring the subject mortgage null and void was a colloquy between the Supreme Court and Batista, during which the plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine Batista, the plaintiff was deprived of its right to due process of law (see Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 US 422, 429 [1982]). Accordingly, the order must be reversed. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.