Galasso v. 592 Pacific Street Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galasso v. 592 Pacific Street Realty Corp.

304 A.D.2d 789, 757 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4515

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to foreclose mortgages, the defendant 592 Pacific Street Realty Corporation appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated April 15, 2002, which, inter alia, denied its motion to vacate a foreclosure sale and referee’s deed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant was not entitled to notice of the foreclosure sale as it did not answer the complaint, appear in the foreclosure action, or demand notice of the sale (see RPAPL 231; Colombi v RWL Constr. Corp., 278 AD2d 191 [2000]; Polish Natl. Alliance of Brooklyn v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 403 [1983]). Further, the appellant has not provided evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct, upon which a court in its equitable powers may set aside the foreclosure sale (see CPLR 2003; Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 520 [1979]; Aronian v Double R. Assoc., 299 AD2d 432 [2002]; 36 N. Water v Mark Caliper, Inc., 295 AD2d 499 [2002]; Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y. v Zapala, 255 AD2d 547, 548 [1998]).

The remaining contentions are either without merit or academic. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose mortgages, the defendant 592 Pacific Street Realty Corporation appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated April 15, 2002, which, inter alia, denied its motion to vacate a foreclosure sale and referee’s deed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant was not entitled to notice of the foreclosure sale as it did not answer the complaint, appear in the foreclosure action, or demand notice of the sale (see RPAPL 231; Colombi v RWL Constr. Corp., 278 AD2d 191 [2000]; Polish Natl. Alliance of Brooklyn v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 403 [1983]). Further, the appellant has not provided evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct, upon which a court in its equitable powers may set aside the foreclosure sale (see CPLR 2003; Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 520 [1979]; Aronian v Double R. Assoc., 299 AD2d 432 [2002]; 36 N. Water v Mark Caliper, Inc., 295 AD2d 499 [2002]; Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y. v Zapala, 255 AD2d 547, 548 [1998]).

The remaining contentions are either without merit or academic. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Galasso v. 592 Pacific Street Realty Corp., 304 A.D.2d 789, 757 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

304 A.D.2d 789 (Galasso v. 592 Pacific Street Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related