Hemingway v. U.S. Bank National

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hemingway v. U.S. Bank National

5 A.D.3d 351, 772 N.Y.S.2d 536

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAFL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated February 21, 2002, which denied her motion to stay her eviction from the subject premises and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the premises dated February 16, 2000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant’s arguments regarding the judgment of foreclosure were previously determined in a prior foreclosure action commenced against the appellant and resolved against her and thus are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]; Matter of Kleiger-Brown v Brown, 306 AD2d 482 [2003]; Mercury Capital Corp. v Shepherds Beach, 305 AD2d 471 [2003]). The motion for a stay and vacatur based on these arguments was providently denied.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J.P., H. Miller, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to RPAFL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated February 21, 2002, which denied her motion to stay her eviction from the subject premises and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the premises dated February 16, 2000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant’s arguments regarding the judgment of foreclosure were previously determined in a prior foreclosure action commenced against the appellant and resolved against her and thus are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]; Matter of Kleiger-Brown v Brown, 306 AD2d 482 [2003]; Mercury Capital Corp. v Shepherds Beach, 305 AD2d 471 [2003]). The motion for a stay and vacatur based on these arguments was providently denied.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J.P., H. Miller, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Hemingway v. U.S. Bank National, 5 A.D.3d 351, 772 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

5 A.D.3d 351 (Hemingway v. U.S. Bank National) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related