Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the denial of Leah Luria’s motion to vacate foreclosure-related orders and a notice of sale and to dismiss the foreclosure complaint as time-barred. The court held that the circumstances did not constitute unique or unusual grounds warranting exercise of the court’s inherent power to vacate the orders in the interests of substantial justice.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court properly denied Luria's motion to vacate the foreclosure orders and notice of sale because the circumstances were not unique or unusual and did not warrant relief under CPLR 5015(a) or the court's inherent power.
- The court declined to grant dismissal of the complaint as time-barred because the denial of Luria's requested relief from the foreclosure orders resolved the motion against her, making the remaining contentions unnecessary to address.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court properly denied Luria's motion under CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the order of reference, the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, and the notice of sale.
- Whether Luria was entitled to dismissal of the foreclosure complaint against her under CPLR 3211(a)(5) as time-barred.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68(followed)
- Nash v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 22 NY3d 220, 225-226(followed)
- Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Dorfman, 170 AD3d 786, 788(followed)
- Matter of McKenna v County of Nassau, Off. of County Attorney, 61 NY2d 739, 742(followed)
- LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Delice, 175 AD3d 1283(followed)
- Cox v Marshall, 161 AD3d 1140, 1142(followed)
- MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Balan, 203 AD3d 717, 719(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…