Contimortgage Corp. v. DeRham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contimortgage Corp. v. DeRham

299 A.D.2d 515, 750 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11455

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 515 (Contimortgage Corp. v. DeRham) 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

Contimortgage Corp. v. DeRham, 299 A.D.2d 515, 750 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Janet R. DeRham, also known as Janet DeRham, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of [516]*516an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated August 24, 2001, as denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate a judgment of foreclosure of the same court (Murphy, J.), entered March 8, 1999, on her default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly held that the appellant did not establish the existence of a meritorious defense to this foreclosure action, and thus is not entitled to vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725; NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v 251-18 GCP Corp., 293 AD2d 456).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Luciano, 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 Janet R. DeRham, also known as Janet DeRham, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of [516]*516an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated August 24, 2001, as denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate a judgment of foreclosure of the same court (Murphy, J.), entered March 8, 1999, on her default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly held that the appellant did not establish the existence of a meritorious defense to this foreclosure action, and thus is not entitled to vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725; NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v 251-18 GCP Corp., 293 AD2d 456).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 515, 750 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contimortgage-corp-v-derham-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack