Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Gonzalez

309 A.D.2d 727, 765 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10443

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 727 (Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Gonzalez) 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

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Gonzalez, 309 A.D.2d 727, 765 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Christopher Gonzalez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated November 19, 2001, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate and set aside a foreclosure sale held on June 18, 2001.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, no basis exists to vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale either pursuant to CPLR 2003 or on the ground of fraud (see Liberty Sav. Bank, FSB v Knab, 281 AD2d 602 [2001]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Christopher Gonzalez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated November 19, 2001, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate and set aside a foreclosure sale held on June 18, 2001.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, no basis exists to vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale either pursuant to CPLR 2003 or on the ground of fraud (see Liberty Sav. Bank, FSB v Knab, 281 AD2d 602 [2001]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 727, 765 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-manhattan-mortgage-corp-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack