Roslyn Savings Bank v. Kline

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roslyn Savings Bank v. Kline

17 A.D.3d 441, 792 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5266

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

DecidedApril 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 441 (Roslyn Savings Bank v. Kline) 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

Roslyn Savings Bank v. Kline, 17 A.D.3d 441, 792 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated December 23, 2003, which denied her motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) to vacate an amended judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered September 3, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CFLR 5015 (a) (2) to vacate the amended judgment of foreclosure and sale, as the defendant failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before entry of the judgment (see Orix Credit Alliance v Grace Indus., 274 AD2d 424 [2000]; Dan’s Supreme Supermarkets v Redmont Realty Co., 261 AD2d 353 [1999]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Skelos, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated December 23, 2003, which denied her motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) to vacate an amended judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered September 3, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CFLR 5015 (a) (2) to vacate the amended judgment of foreclosure and sale, as the defendant failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before entry of the judgment (see Orix Credit Alliance v Grace Indus., 274 AD2d 424 [2000]; Dan’s Supreme Supermarkets v Redmont Realty Co., 261 AD2d 353 [1999]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 441, 792 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roslyn-savings-bank-v-kline-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack