Farrauto v. Two Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrauto v. Two Sons, Inc.

302 A.D.2d 354, 753 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 749

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 354 (Farrauto v. Two Sons, Inc.) 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

Farrauto v. Two Sons, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 354, 753 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Two Sons, Inc., and Ralph Passarelli appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Friedman, J.H.O.), entered August 13, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied their cross motion to set aside the sale of the subject property and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the report of the referee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion to set aside the foreclosure sale. The appellants failed to establish the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct to warrant vacatur of the foreclosure sale (see Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515). The Supreme Court also properly confirmed the referee’s report. Ritter, J.P., Gold-stein, Luciano and Schmidt, 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 defendants Two Sons, Inc., and Ralph Passarelli appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Friedman, J.H.O.), entered August 13, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied their cross motion to set aside the sale of the subject property and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the report of the referee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion to set aside the foreclosure sale. The appellants failed to establish the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct to warrant vacatur of the foreclosure sale (see Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515). The Supreme Court also properly confirmed the referee’s report. Ritter, J.P., Gold-stein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 354, 753 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrauto-v-two-sons-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack