Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Coletta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Coletta

2017 NY Slip Op 6213, 153 A.D.3d 756, 59 N.Y.S.3d 788

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2017

Docket2015-07622

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6213 (Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Coletta) 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

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Coletta, 2017 NY Slip Op 6213, 153 A.D.3d 756, 59 N.Y.S.3d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Michael Coletta and Susan A. Coletta, also known as Susan Coletta, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered April 13, 2015, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered August 23, 2004, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint. The appellants failed to move for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see New Century Mtge. Corp. v Chimmiri, 146 AD3d 893 [2017]; LaSalle Bank N.A. v Oberstein, 146 AD3d 945 [2017]; Dimery v Ulster Sav. Bank, 82 AD3d 1034 [2011]; Bank of N.Y. v Stradford, 55 AD3d 765 [2008]; Aames Capital Corp. v Davidsohn, 24 AD3d 474, 475 [2005]).

*757 Moreover, the appellants did not allege “extrinsic fraud,” which is “a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter” (Shaw v Shaw, 97 AD2d 403, 403 [1983]; see LaSalle Bank N.A. v Oherstein, 146 AD3d at 945; EMC Mtge. Corp. v Toussaint, 136 AD3d 861 [2016]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d 742 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d 678 [2006]; Tamimi v Tamimi, 38 AD2d 197 [1972]). Rather, they alleged that the plaintiff committed “intrinsic fraud, i.e., that the allegations in the complaint are false” (LaSalle Bank N.A. v Oberstein, 146 AD3d at 945; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Karlis, 138 AD3d 915 [2016]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d at 742; New Century Mtge. Corp. v Corriette, 117 AD3d 1011 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Stradford, 55 AD3d at 765; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d at 679).

Thus, the appellants were required to show a reasonable excuse for their default (see EMC Mtge. Corp. v Toussaint, 136 AD3d at 862-863; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d at 742; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d at 679). Since they failed to offer any excuse for their default, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) (see EMC Mtge. Corp. v Toussaint, 136 AD3d at 862-863; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d at 742; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d at 679).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Roman and LaSalle, 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 defendants Michael Coletta and Susan A. Coletta, also known as Susan Coletta, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered April 13, 2015, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered August 23, 2004, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint. The appellants failed to move for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see New Century Mtge. Corp. v Chimmiri, 146 AD3d 893 [2017]; LaSalle Bank N.A. v Oberstein, 146 AD3d 945 [2017]; Dimery v Ulster Sav. Bank, 82 AD3d 1034 [2011]; Bank of N.Y. v Stradford, 55 AD3d 765 [2008]; Aames Capital Corp. v Davidsohn, 24 AD3d 474, 475 [2005]).

*757 Moreover, the appellants did not allege “extrinsic fraud,” which is “a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter” (Shaw v Shaw, 97 AD2d 403, 403 [1983]; see LaSalle Bank N.A. v Oherstein, 146 AD3d at 945; EMC Mtge. Corp. v Toussaint, 136 AD3d 861 [2016]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d 742 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d 678 [2006]; Tamimi v Tamimi, 38 AD2d 197 [1972]). Rather, they alleged that the plaintiff committed “intrinsic fraud, i.e., that the allegations in the complaint are false” (LaSalle Bank N.A. v Oberstein, 146 AD3d at 945; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Karlis, 138 AD3d 915 [2016]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d at 742; New Century Mtge. Corp. v Corriette, 117 AD3d 1011 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Stradford, 55 AD3d at 765; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d at 679).

Thus, the appellants were required to show a reasonable excuse for their default (see EMC Mtge. Corp. v Toussaint, 136 AD3d at 862-863; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d at 742; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d at 679). Since they failed to offer any excuse for their default, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) (see EMC Mtge. Corp. v Toussaint, 136 AD3d at 862-863; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 127 AD3d at 742; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d at 679).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6213, 153 A.D.3d 756, 59 N.Y.S.3d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-minnesota-na-v-coletta-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack