Rakosi v. Daniel Perla Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rakosi v. Daniel Perla Associates

3 A.D.3d 431, 772 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 669

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 431 (Rakosi v. Daniel Perla Associates) 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

Rakosi v. Daniel Perla Associates, 3 A.D.3d 431, 772 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2002, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint to add a necessary party, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against defendants-respondents on the ground that it constitutes a collateral attack upon a prior judgment of foreclosure and sale. Although the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff was named and served in the [432]*432foreclosure action, he defaulted and, rather than moving in that action under CPLR 5015 to vacate the resulting judgment, has impermissibly commenced a new plenary action alleging that the judgment was wrongfully obtained (see Vinokur v Penny Lane Owners Corp., 269 AD2d 226 [2000]).

The motion court should, however, have granted plaintiff’s cross motion to add a necessary party, Deca LLC, which may be inequitably affected by a judgment rendered in the remainder of this case against the nonmoving defendants. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2002, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint to add a necessary party, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against defendants-respondents on the ground that it constitutes a collateral attack upon a prior judgment of foreclosure and sale. Although the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff was named and served in the [432]*432foreclosure action, he defaulted and, rather than moving in that action under CPLR 5015 to vacate the resulting judgment, has impermissibly commenced a new plenary action alleging that the judgment was wrongfully obtained (see Vinokur v Penny Lane Owners Corp., 269 AD2d 226 [2000]).

The motion court should, however, have granted plaintiff’s cross motion to add a necessary party, Deca LLC, which may be inequitably affected by a judgment rendered in the remainder of this case against the nonmoving defendants. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 431, 772 N.Y.S.2d 648, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rakosi-v-daniel-perla-associates-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack