Majority
p. 691U.S. Bank National Association, Appellant, v Wentz Mayala et al., Defendants, and Juan Vega et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Juan Vega et al., Respondents, v Wentz Mayala et al., Defendants, and MERS et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 2.) [928 NYS2d 643]
p. 692
Contrary to the appellants’ contention, in opposition to the respondents’ prima facie showing in both action No. 1 and action No. 2 that they are and have been the owners of a two-thirds interest in the subject real property since September 1991, the appellants, in their respective opposition papers, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the affirmative defenses of adverse possession (see RPAPL 541; Myers v Bartholomew, 91 NY2d 630 , 633-635 [1998]; Culver v Rhodes, 87 NY 348 , 355 [1882]; Perez v Perez, 228 AD2d 161 , 162 [1996]; Perkins v Volpe, 146 AD2d 617 , 617-618 [1989]; Knowlton Bros, v New York Air Brake Co., 169 App Div 324 , 334 [1915]) or laches (see Kraker v Roll, 100 AD2d 424 , 432-435 [1984]). Also contrary to the appellants’ contention, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly declared the subject mortgages invalid in their entirety (see Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754 , 754 [2007]; see also First Natl. Bank of Nev. v Williams, 74 AD3d 740 , 742 [2010]; Johnson v Melnikoff, 65 AD3d 519 , 520-521 [2009]; see generally Filowick v Long, 201 AD2d 893 , 893 [1994]). Rivera, J.P, Covello, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Myers v. Bartholomew 91 NY2d 630 at 633-635 p. 692
- Culver v. Rhodes 87 NY 348 at 355 p. 692
- Perez v. Perez 228 AD2d 161 at 162 p. 692
- Perkins v. Volpe 146 AD2d 617 at 617-618 p. 692
- Kraker v. Roll 100 AD2d 424 at 432-435 p. 692
- Cruz v. Cruz 37 AD3d 754 at 754 p. 692
- Johnson v. Melnikoff 65 AD3d 519 at 520-521 p. 692
- Filowick v. Long 201 AD2d 893 at 893 p. 692