GE Capital Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Tsoronis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

GE Capital Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Tsoronis

254 A.D.2d 392, 678 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11069

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 392 (GE Capital Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Tsoronis) 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

GE Capital Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Tsoronis, 254 A.D.2d 392, 678 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Vasilios Tsoronis appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated March 31, 1997, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure dated October 25, 1996, entered upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[393]*393The appellant failed to show that he was entitled to the vacatur of the judgment because of an excusable default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]), and the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the plaintiff (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Florio 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 Vasilios Tsoronis appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated March 31, 1997, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure dated October 25, 1996, entered upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[393]*393The appellant failed to show that he was entitled to the vacatur of the judgment because of an excusable default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]), and the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the plaintiff (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 392, 678 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ge-capital-mortgage-service-inc-v-tsoronis-nyappdiv-1998.