T10 Funding v. Baroda Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

T10 Funding v. Baroda Properties, Inc.

116 A.D.3d 694, 983 N.Y.S.2d 307

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

DecidedApril 2, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 694 (T10 Funding v. Baroda Properties, Inc.) 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

T10 Funding v. Baroda Properties, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 694, 983 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose on a real property tax lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated September 9, 2013, which, after a hearing (Colabella, J.H.O.), granted the motion of the defendants Harikrishna E Shukla and Kirta H. Shukla, inter alla, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to a motion by the defendants Harikrishna P. Shukla and Kirta H. Shukla, inter alla, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, the Supreme Court referred the matter for a hearing on the issue of the validity of service of process. At the hearing, the plaintiffs [695]*695process server failed to appear to testify and the plaintiff made an application for an adjournment. The Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) denied the oral motion, conducted the hearing, and concluded that service of process had not been properly effected upon the Shuklas. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the Shuklas’ motion, inter alla, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the JHO abused his discretion by denying the adjournment request. An application for an adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the hearing court, which must engage in a balanced consideration of all of the relevant factors (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; Matter of Tripp, 101 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2012]). Under the circumstances in this case, including the merit of the Shuklas’ motion, a potentially meritorious defense to the action, and the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate that the nonappearance of the process server was unintentional, the JHO did not improvidently exercise his discretion in denying the plaintiffs application for an adjournment (see Matter of Tripp, 101 AD3d at 1138; Matter of Dakota B. [Brigitta B.], 73 AD3d 763 [2010]; Atwater v Mace, 39 AD3d 573, 574 [2007]; Doris Trading Corp. v Melody Knitting Mills, 172 AD2d 399 [1991]). Hall, J.P, Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose on a real property tax lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated September 9, 2013, which, after a hearing (Colabella, J.H.O.), granted the motion of the defendants Harikrishna E Shukla and Kirta H. Shukla, inter alla, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to a motion by the defendants Harikrishna P. Shukla and Kirta H. Shukla, inter alla, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, the Supreme Court referred the matter for a hearing on the issue of the validity of service of process. At the hearing, the plaintiffs [695]*695process server failed to appear to testify and the plaintiff made an application for an adjournment. The Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) denied the oral motion, conducted the hearing, and concluded that service of process had not been properly effected upon the Shuklas. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the Shuklas’ motion, inter alla, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the JHO abused his discretion by denying the adjournment request. An application for an adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the hearing court, which must engage in a balanced consideration of all of the relevant factors (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]; Matter of Tripp, 101 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2012]). Under the circumstances in this case, including the merit of the Shuklas’ motion, a potentially meritorious defense to the action, and the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate that the nonappearance of the process server was unintentional, the JHO did not improvidently exercise his discretion in denying the plaintiffs application for an adjournment (see Matter of Tripp, 101 AD3d at 1138; Matter of Dakota B. [Brigitta B.], 73 AD3d 763 [2010]; Atwater v Mace, 39 AD3d 573, 574 [2007]; Doris Trading Corp. v Melody Knitting Mills, 172 AD2d 399 [1991]). Hall, J.P, Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 694, 983 N.Y.S.2d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t10-funding-v-baroda-properties-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack