Central Funding Co. v. Kimler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Funding Co. v. Kimler

54 A.D.2d 748, 387 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14395

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 748 (Central Funding Co. v. Kimler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Funding Co. v. Kimler, 54 A.D.2d 748, 387 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 1, 1975, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside a judgment of the same court, entered in plaintiff’s favor, upon an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion denied. The moving papers fail to allege fraud in the procurement of the judgment (see CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 3; Crouse v McVickar, 207 NY 213, 218; Mayor of City of N.Y.v Brady, 115 NY 599, 614-615; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, § 63:164). Moreover, the so-called newly discovered evidence purportedly establishing fraud was readily obtainable at the time the action was commenced and should have been interposed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3018, subd [b]; Mully v Drayn, 51 AD2d 660; 755 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Carroll, 266 NY 157, 162). Defendant should not, at this late date, and after the property has been sold to a bona fide purchaser without notice, be permitted to raise "a 'newly [749]*749discovered theory’ of defense” (see Merritt v Merritt, 259 App Div 242, 244-245; see, also, Matter of Alexandroff, 183 Misc 95, 99). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 1, 1975, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside a judgment of the same court, entered in plaintiff’s favor, upon an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion denied. The moving papers fail to allege fraud in the procurement of the judgment (see CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 3; Crouse v McVickar, 207 NY 213, 218; Mayor of City of N.Y.v Brady, 115 NY 599, 614-615; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, § 63:164). Moreover, the so-called newly discovered evidence purportedly establishing fraud was readily obtainable at the time the action was commenced and should have been interposed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3018, subd [b]; Mully v Drayn, 51 AD2d 660; 755 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Carroll, 266 NY 157, 162). Defendant should not, at this late date, and after the property has been sold to a bona fide purchaser without notice, be permitted to raise "a 'newly [749]*749discovered theory’ of defense” (see Merritt v Merritt, 259 App Div 242, 244-245; see, also, Matter of Alexandroff, 183 Misc 95, 99). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 748, 387 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-funding-co-v-kimler-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack