Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. New York Financial & Mortgage Co.

222 A.D.2d 647, 636 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 647 (Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. New York Financial & Mortgage Co.) 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
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. New York Financial & Mortgage Co., 222 A.D.2d 647, 636 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant New York Financial & Mortgage Co., Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 12, 1993, which denied its motion to set aside a foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In the exercise of its equitable powers, a court has the discretion to set aside a judicial sale where fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale (see, Long Is. Sav. Bank v Valiquette, 183 AD2d 877; see also, Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 520-521).

Here, the unilateral mistake of the appellant’s counsel as to the location of the foreclosure sale, while unfortunate, does not provide a sufficient basis for invalidating the sale (see, Crossland Mtge. Corp. v Frankel, 192 AD2d 571; Long Is. Sav. Bank v Valiquette, supra). The appellant’s counsel was served with the Referee’s notice of sale, which contained the street address of the courthouse where the sale was to be held, and there is [648]*648no dispute that the sale was conducted in accordance with lawful procedure.

In addition, the Supreme Court properly determined that the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale was an indispensable party to the appellant’s application to set aside the sale (see, Vanderbilt Realty Corp. v Gordon, 134 AD2d 586). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Bank of Am., N.A.
2025 NY Slip Op 01256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Hudson City Savings Bank v. Woodard
56 Misc. 3d 1077 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Testa
140 A.D.3d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Ronkon
289 A.D.2d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Home Federal Savings Bank v. Versace
272 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Zapala
255 A.D.2d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Security Pacific National Trust Co. v. Dusevic
178 Misc. 2d 874 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 647, 636 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-national-mortgage-assn-v-new-york-financial-mortgage-co-nyappdiv-1995.