TD Bank, N.A. v. Chaim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

TD Bank, N.A. v. Chaim

140 A.D.3d 850, 31 N.Y.S.3d 897

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

DecidedJune 8, 2016

Docket2014-10070

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 850 (TD Bank, N.A. v. Chaim) 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

TD Bank, N.A. v. Chaim, 140 A.D.3d 850, 31 N.Y.S.3d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated August 22, 2014, which denied its motion for leave to renew its cross motion, inter alia, to set aside the sale of the subject premises, which was denied in an order of the same court entered March 12, 2014.

Ordered that the order dated August 22, 2014, is affirmed, with costs.

Although the Supreme Court improperly treated the motion of the defendant Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim as a motion for leave to reargue rather than as a motion for leave to renew (see CPLR 2221 [d], [e]), the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion because it was based on evidence that, with due diligence, could have been discovered earlier (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 AD3d 727, 728 [2009]; Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]).

Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Barros, 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 Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated August 22, 2014, which denied its motion for leave to renew its cross motion, inter alia, to set aside the sale of the subject premises, which was denied in an order of the same court entered March 12, 2014.

Ordered that the order dated August 22, 2014, is affirmed, with costs.

Although the Supreme Court improperly treated the motion of the defendant Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim as a motion for leave to reargue rather than as a motion for leave to renew (see CPLR 2221 [d], [e]), the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion because it was based on evidence that, with due diligence, could have been discovered earlier (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 AD3d 727, 728 [2009]; Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]).

Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 850, 31 N.Y.S.3d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/td-bank-na-v-chaim-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack