Provident Savings Bank, F.A. v. Bordes

244 A.D.2d 470, 664 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 17, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 470 (Provident Savings Bank, F.A. v. Bordes) 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
Provident Savings Bank, F.A. v. Bordes, 244 A.D.2d 470, 664 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated January 13, 1997, which denied their motion to vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, has the discretion to set aside a judicial sale where fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale (see, Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 521; Bankers Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v House, 182 AD2d 602; Harbert Offset Corp. v Bowery Sav. Bank, 174 AD2d 650). We find that no such acts occurred here justifying interference with this sale. It is equally well established that in the absence of that type of conduct, the mere inadequacy of the price alone is an insufficient reason to vacate an otherwise fair judicial sale, unless the price is so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court (see, Harbert Offset Corp. v Bowery Sav. Bank, supra, at 650; Glenville & 110 Corp. v Tortora, 137 AD2d 654). The sale price here which was equivalent to the mortgage balance plus sale expenses (see generally, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 407-408), was over 50% of the defendants’ appraised value of the property, and was not so unconscionably low so as to warrant vacatur of the sale. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nath
2018 NY Slip Op 4696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. McGill
138 A.D.3d 1077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Wells Fargo Bank v. IPA Asset Management III
111 A.D.3d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Associate v. Hartridge
58 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Schotter
50 A.D.3d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Mei Yun Li v. Qing He Xu
38 A.D.3d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v. NY Pride Holdings, Inc.
34 A.D.3d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
NYCTL-1 Trust v. Liberty Bay Realty Corp.
21 A.D.3d 1013 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze
295 A.D.2d 338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB v. Bassi
294 A.D.2d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Zapala
255 A.D.2d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.D.2d 470, 664 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/provident-savings-bank-fa-v-bordes-nyappdiv-1997.