MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v. Wise

2025 NY Slip Op 03566 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · June 11, 2025 · No. Index No. 7666/12

Summary

This Appellate Division decision reviews an order denying an intervenor's motion to set aside a foreclosure sale and compel acceptance of his high bid at a public auction. Citing CPLR 2003 and RPAPL 231(6), the court held that the intervenor failed to present evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct sufficient to cast suspicion on the fairness of the sale. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of the motion with costs.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.; LINDA CHRISTOPHER; LAURENCE L. LOVE; PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 11, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 7666/12
Procedural posture
Intervenor-appellant Armand Retamozzo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County denying his motions to set aside the foreclosure sale and to compel the referee to accept his bid.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Armand Retamozzo v. MTGLQ Investors, L.P.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

foreclosuremortgagesappellate procedurecivil procedurereal estate

Practice areas

real estate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying Retamozzo's motions to set aside the foreclosure sale and to compel the referee to accept his bid.

Holdings

  1. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, holding that Retamozzo failed to present evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct and therefore had no basis to set aside the foreclosure sale under CPLR 2003 or RPAPL 231(6).

Key quotations

CPLR 2003 authorizes the court to set aside a judicial sale for a failure to comply with the requirements of the [CPLR] as to the notice, time or manner of such sale, if a substantial right of a party was prejudiced by the defect
RPAPL 231(6) provides, in relevant part, that a court, within one year after a foreclosure sale, may set the sale aside for failure to comply with the provisions of this section as to the notice, time or manner of such sale if a substantial right of a party was prejudiced by the defect

Factual background

Retamozzo intervened in a foreclosure action concerning a Manorville property. The property was sold at public auction on October 23, 2019; the plaintiff was the prevailing bidder with a $100 bid. Retamozzo claimed he submitted a $200,000 bid before the auction closed, which the referee refused to accept, and sought to set aside the sale and compel acceptance of his bid.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted Retamozzo leave to intervene but denied his motions to set aside the foreclosure sale and to compel acceptance of his bid. Retamozzo appealed those denials to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…