PII Sam, LLC v. Mazzurco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

PII Sam, LLC v. Mazzurco

106 A.D.3d 973, 965 N.Y.S.2d 365

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

DecidedMay 22, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 973 (PII Sam, LLC v. Mazzurco) 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

PII Sam, LLC v. Mazzurco, 106 A.D.3d 973, 965 N.Y.S.2d 365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Vincent Mazzurco appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated [974]*974October 25, 2011, which denied his motion to set aside the foreclosure sale of the subject property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to set aside the foreclosure sale without conducting a hearing because the appellant failed to establish that the sale violated RPAPL 231 (4) such that a substantial right of a party was prejudiced (see Johnson v 1476-A Fulton St. Corp., 84 AD3d 1316 [2011]; Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp. v McKiernan, 13 AD3d 344, 344 [2004]; cf. Meade v JD Venture Capital, LLC, 38 AD3d 858, 859 [2007]). Eng, PJ., Rivera, Angiolillo and Balkin, 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 Vincent Mazzurco appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated [974]*974October 25, 2011, which denied his motion to set aside the foreclosure sale of the subject property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to set aside the foreclosure sale without conducting a hearing because the appellant failed to establish that the sale violated RPAPL 231 (4) such that a substantial right of a party was prejudiced (see Johnson v 1476-A Fulton St. Corp., 84 AD3d 1316 [2011]; Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp. v McKiernan, 13 AD3d 344, 344 [2004]; cf. Meade v JD Venture Capital, LLC, 38 AD3d 858, 859 [2007]). Eng, PJ., Rivera, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 973, 965 N.Y.S.2d 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pii-sam-llc-v-mazzurco-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack