Case Name: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Respondent, v. Vicki Schott, Also Known as Vicki A. Mosello and Another, Appellant, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-11-19
Citations: 122 A.D.3d 801
Docket Number: 
Parties: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Respondent, v Vicki Schott, Also Known as Vicki A. Mosello and Another, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Skelos, Dickerson and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 801–802

Head Matter:
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Respondent, v Vicki Schott, Also Known as Vicki A. Mosello and Another, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
[997 NYS2d 152]

Opinion:
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Vicki Schott, also known as Vicki A. Mosello, also known as Vicki A. Schott, appeals from a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated September 5, 2012, which upon an order of the same court dated August 1, 2012, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, directed the sale of the subject premises.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
As a general rule, we do not consider an issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised or could have been raised in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although this Court has the inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750 [1999]; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350 [1976]). The defendant Vicki Schott, also known as Vicki A. Mosello, also known as Vicki A. Schott, appealed from an order dated August 1, 2012, which granted a motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment on the complaint in this mortgage foreclosure action. However, that appeal was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 3, 2013, for failure to timely perfect. We decline to exercise our discretion to determine the merits of the instant appeal, which raises the same issues that could have been raised on the appeal from the order granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see Madison Realty Capital, L.P. v Broken Angel, LLC, 107 AD3d 766, 767 [2013]; see also Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d at 353-356).
Rivera, J.R, Skelos, Dickerson and Barros, JJ., concur.