Maloney v. Talbot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maloney v. Talbot

55 A.D.3d 568, 864 N.Y.S.2d 319

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 568 (Maloney v. Talbot) 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

Maloney v. Talbot, 55 A.D.3d 568, 864 N.Y.S.2d 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Patricia Talbot and Joseph Talbot appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated March 29, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the foreclosure sale of the subject premises.

[569]*569Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A foreclosure sale may be vacated when fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale (see Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v Cobbs, 4 AD3d 383 [2004]; see also Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 520 [1979]). The appellants failed to establish any such conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the foreclosure sale. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Covello and Leventhal, 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 defendants Patricia Talbot and Joseph Talbot appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated March 29, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the foreclosure sale of the subject premises.

[569]*569Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A foreclosure sale may be vacated when fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale (see Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v Cobbs, 4 AD3d 383 [2004]; see also Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 520 [1979]). The appellants failed to establish any such conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the foreclosure sale. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 568, 864 N.Y.S.2d 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-talbot-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack