Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Bartlett

103 A.D.3d 516, 959 N.Y.S.2d 432

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 19, 2013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if the appraisal report were newly discovered and therefore a proper basis for renewal after our affirmance of the prior order (84 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2011]; see Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374, 377 [1st Dept 2001]), the motion would be denied because the appraisal report would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; New Heaven Props, v Grinberg, 302 AD2d 331 [1st Dept 2003]). There is no evidence to support attributing to plaintiff [517] lender any possible fraud by the appraiser of defendant’s property in connection with his mortgage loan.

We perceive no basis for granting plaintiffs request for sanctions on appeal. Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if the appraisal report were newly discovered and therefore a proper basis for renewal after our affirmance of the prior order (84 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2011]; see Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374, 377 [1st Dept 2001]), the motion would be denied because the appraisal report would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; New Heaven Props, v Grinberg, 302 AD2d 331 [1st Dept 2003]). There is no evidence to support attributing to plaintiff [517] lender any possible fraud by the appraiser of defendant’s property in connection with his mortgage loan.

We perceive no basis for granting plaintiffs request for sanctions on appeal. Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Bartlett, 103 A.D.3d 516, 959 N.Y.S.2d 432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

103 A.D.3d 516 (Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Bartlett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related