State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze

295 A.D.2d 338, 742 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5802

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 338 (State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze) 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

State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze, 295 A.D.2d 338, 742 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Michael R. Zotos appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated January 8, 2002, which denied his motion, inter alia, to set aside the sale of the subject premises to the plaintiff as void, and for a determination that he was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct as to warrant vacatur of the foreclosure sale and transfer of the premises to him (see Provident Sav. Bank v Bordes, 244 AD2d 470; Citicorp Mtge. v Strong, 227 AD2d 818; Green Point Sav. Bank v Kandel, 224 AD2d 488). The appellant’s contention that the plaintiff was not the highest bidder at the sale is without merit (see Citicorp Mtge. v Strong, supra at 821). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and H. Miller, 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, Michael R. Zotos appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated January 8, 2002, which denied his motion, inter alia, to set aside the sale of the subject premises to the plaintiff as void, and for a determination that he was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct as to warrant vacatur of the foreclosure sale and transfer of the premises to him (see Provident Sav. Bank v Bordes, 244 AD2d 470; Citicorp Mtge. v Strong, 227 AD2d 818; Green Point Sav. Bank v Kandel, 224 AD2d 488). The appellant’s contention that the plaintiff was not the highest bidder at the sale is without merit (see Citicorp Mtge. v Strong, supra at 821). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 338, 742 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-york-mortgage-agency-v-hinze-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack