- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Frankel v. 59 Sands Point, LLC
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03427
Background
Plaintiff Ronald Frankel commenced this action to foreclose mortgages against multiple defendants including 59 Sands Point, LLC, Hudson City Savings Bank (Hudson), and Eve Strausman Winston and Jonathan Winston. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint against Hudson and for an order of reference. The Winstons cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), granted plaintiff’s motion in an order dated September 20, 2016.
Thereafter, an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered November 21, 2018, confirming the referee’s report and directing sale of the property. Hudson appealed from both the 2016 order and the foreclosure judgment. The Winstons separately appealed from the foreclosure judgment. Plaintiff moved to dismiss Hudson’s appeal from the 2016 order.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed Hudson’s appeal from the 2016 order and affirmed the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The Court held that Hudson’s right of direct appeal from the 2016 order terminated upon entry of the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, applying the principle from Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248. The issues raised on appeal from the intermediate order were brought up for review and considered on the appeal from the foreclosure judgment, where they were found to be without merit.
As to the Winstons’ appeal, the Court found their arguments unavailing and affirmed the foreclosure and sale. One bill of costs was awarded to the plaintiff.
Takeaways
This decision applies the well-established rule that an intermediate order in a foreclosure action merges into the final judgment of foreclosure and sale, terminating the right to directly appeal the intermediate order. Parties aggrieved by pre-judgment orders in foreclosure actions must raise those issues on appeal from the final judgment rather than maintaining separate appeals from the interlocutory orders. The procedural holding ensures judicial economy while preserving appellate review through the appeal from the final disposition.
Why It Matters
Foreclosure practitioners should carefully consider their appellate strategy when multiple orders are entered during a protracted foreclosure proceeding. Intermediate appeals from orders granting summary judgment or appointing referees may become moot once a judgment of foreclosure and sale is entered. Counsel should preserve all issues for review on appeal from the final judgment rather than relying on separate interlocutory appeals. This case also confirms that appellate courts will consider issues raised in merged orders when reviewing the final judgment, ensuring no loss of substantive appellate review despite the procedural limitation.