Holt v. Holt

262 A.D.2d 530, 692 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6947
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 530 (Holt v. Holt) 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
Holt v. Holt, 262 A.D.2d 530, 692 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to set aside a conveyance of real property and a mortgage upon that property, the defendants Champion Mortgage Co., Inc., and Champion Mortgage Servicing Corp., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 6, 1998, which denied their motion to strike the plaintiffs note of issue for an inquest against defaulting defendant Robert Maurice Holt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3215 (a) requires that when a default judgment is taken against fewer than all of the defendants, the action is severed as against the remaining defendants (see, Frolish v Ryder Truck Rental, 63 AD2d 799). The judgment obtained by the plaintiff as against the defaulting defendant is not entitled to collateral estoppel effect against the nondefaulting defendants who would otherwise be denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate issues of liability (see, Woodson v Mendon Leasing [531]*531Corp., 259 AD2d 304; Frolish v Ryder Truck Rental, supra). Thus, in the instant case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion which sought, in effect, to preclude the plaintiff from obtaining a default judgment against the nonappearing defendant. Notwithstanding the default judgment obtained by the plaintiff against one of the parties who allegedly perpetrated the fraud that induced the plaintiff to convey the subject property, the plaintiff must still meet his burden of proving, over the appellants’ defense, that their mortgage should be set aside as a consequence of the alleged fraud (see, S.D.I. Corp. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 208 AD2d 706; Firedoor Corp. v Merlin Indus., 86 AD2d 577). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lewis v. Reeves
2025 NY Slip Op 01362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
KNR Constr., LLC v. Epiphany Constr. Servs., Ltd.
2024 NY Slip Op 03333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Gannon v. Sadeghian
2017 NY Slip Op 4582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Francesco v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc.
100 A.D.3d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
AutoOne Insurance v. Valentine
72 A.D.3d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Magic Recovery Medical & Surgical Supply Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
27 Misc. 3d 67 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
RSM PRODUCTION CORP. v. Fridman
643 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Chambers v. City of New York
309 A.D.2d 81 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp.
307 A.D.2d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Sniadach v. Gonzales
191 Misc. 2d 422 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2001)
Watrous v. Autera
284 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 530, 692 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holt-v-holt-nyappdiv-1999.