Golden First Bank v. Tal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Golden First Bank v. Tal

136 A.D.3d 974, 25 N.Y.S.3d 638

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2016

Docket2014-05865

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 974 (Golden First Bank v. Tal) 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

Golden First Bank v. Tal, 136 A.D.3d 974, 25 N.Y.S.3d 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Hersel Tal, also known as Herzel Tal, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered April 9, 2014, which denied his motion to vacate or modify a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (McCabe, J.), entered April 24, 2008, upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate or modify the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered April 24, 2008, upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint. Vacatur could only be obtained by way of a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015 (see IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v Vincoli, 105 AD3d 704, 706 [2013]). Although the appellant did not designate his motion as made pursuant to CPLR 5015, he contended that the judgment must be vacated based upon alleged acts of misconduct committed by the plaintiff and its principal, which falls under CPLR 5015 (a) (3). However, the appellant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the plaintiff procured the subject judgment of foreclosure and sale by fraud, misrep *975 resentation, or other misconduct (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante, 107 AD3d 752, 753 [2013]; Onewest Bank, FSB v Martinez, 101 AD3d 969, 970 [2012]). The appellant’s broad, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and claims of improper practices in unrelated matters were not sufficient to meet his burden (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante, 107 AD3d at 753; Onewest Bank, FSB v Martinez, 101 AD3d at 970; Bank of N.Y. v Stradford, 55 AD3d 765, 766 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court, without merit, or refer to matter dehors the record.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Barros, 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 Hersel Tal, also known as Herzel Tal, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered April 9, 2014, which denied his motion to vacate or modify a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (McCabe, J.), entered April 24, 2008, upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate or modify the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered April 24, 2008, upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint. Vacatur could only be obtained by way of a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015 (see IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v Vincoli, 105 AD3d 704, 706 [2013]). Although the appellant did not designate his motion as made pursuant to CPLR 5015, he contended that the judgment must be vacated based upon alleged acts of misconduct committed by the plaintiff and its principal, which falls under CPLR 5015 (a) (3). However, the appellant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the plaintiff procured the subject judgment of foreclosure and sale by fraud, misrep *975 resentation, or other misconduct (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante, 107 AD3d 752, 753 [2013]; Onewest Bank, FSB v Martinez, 101 AD3d 969, 970 [2012]). The appellant’s broad, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and claims of improper practices in unrelated matters were not sufficient to meet his burden (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante, 107 AD3d at 753; Onewest Bank, FSB v Martinez, 101 AD3d at 970; Bank of N.Y. v Stradford, 55 AD3d 765, 766 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court, without merit, or refer to matter dehors the record.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 974, 25 N.Y.S.3d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-first-bank-v-tal-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack