Court Opinion

ID: 9928060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 18:09:38.125416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:01.002057
License: Public Domain

CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pantoja (2024 NY Slip Op 00370)

CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pantoja

2024 NY Slip Op 00370

Decided on January 30, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: January 30, 2024

Before: Singh, J.P., Kapnick, Kennedy, Higgitt, Michael, JJ. 

Index No. 13637/06 Appeal No. 1555 Case No. 2023-03041 

[*1]CitiMortgage, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,
vRafael Pantoja, Defendant-Appellant, First Home Properties, LLC et al., Defendants.

Rafael M. Pantoja, appellant pro se.
Davidson Fink LLP, Rochester (Todd Z. Marks of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered April 27, 2023, which denied defendant Rafael Pantoja's motion for entry of a proposed judgment and other relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion seeking entry of a judgment, since the action had been finally terminated by an order discontinuing the action, which divested the court of jurisdiction to consider the motion (see Cropper v Stewart, 190 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2021]; CPLR 3217[b]). The discontinuance had the effect of nullifying Pantoja's pending motion to vacate his default, and his proposed answer and counterclaims were never filed (see Newman v Newman, 245 AD2d 353, 354 [2d Dept 1997]; see also Pearson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Harlem Hosp. Ctr.], 43 AD3d 92, 95 [1st Dept 2007], affd 10 NY3d 852 [2008]). Even if we were to consider the merits, the proposed judgment offered by Pantoja is inconsistent with this Court's determination in prior appeals that the deed purporting to convey the subject property to him was void ab initio (see CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pantoja, 176 AD3d 655, 655-656 [1st Dept 2019]; Salazar v Pantoja, 137 AD3d 511, 511 [1st Dept 2016]).
We have considered Pantoja's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: January 30, 2024