| Bank of Am., N.A. v Latif |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 06302 [243 AD3d 752] |
| November 19, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Bank of America, N.A., Respondent, v Tausif A. Latif, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
Petroff Amshen LLP, Brooklyn, NY (James Tierney and Steven Amshen of counsel), for appellant.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York, NY (Karena J. Straub, Ben Z. Raindorf, and Mitchell S. Kurtz of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Tausif A. Latif appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Desmond A. Green, J.), dated February 3, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon an amended decision dated October 2, 2018 (Robert W. Soos, Special Referee), made after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied those branches of the motion of that defendant which were (1) pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated February 2, 2010, and so much of an order dated September 25, 2009, as, in effect, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against him and for an order of reference, and (2) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the order dated February 3, 2023, must be dismissed on the ground that the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of an order and amended judgment of foreclosure and sale in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order dated February 3, 2023, are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order and amended judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Bank of Am., N.A. v Latif, 243 AD3d 753 [2025] [decided herewith]). Iannacci, J.P., Ford, Dowling and Hom, JJ., concur.
Motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 15, 2024, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the motion is denied.