Wells Fargo Bank v. Carney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells Fargo Bank v. Carney

50 A.D.3d 287, 853 N.Y.S.2d 880

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

DecidedApril 1, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 287 (Wells Fargo Bank v. Carney) 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 v. Carney, 50 A.D.3d 287, 853 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 9, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Denise Carney’s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that there was no fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct that would permit it to set aside a sale of foreclosure in the absence of compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1341 (see NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v LFJ Realty Corp., 307 AD2d 957 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 622 [2004]). Carney’s contention that her right of redemption continued until delivery of the referee’s deed is unsupported by case law (see GMAC Mtge. Corp. v Tuck, 299 AD2d 315, 316 [2002]; United Capital Corp. v 183 Lorraine St. Assoc., 251 AD2d 400 [1998]), and contradicted by the plain wording of RPAPL 1341, which “does not allow for a discretionary interpretation or application” (Gabriel v 351 St. Nicholas Equities, 168 AD2d 338, 339 [1990]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32074(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 9, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Denise Carney’s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that there was no fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct that would permit it to set aside a sale of foreclosure in the absence of compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1341 (see NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v LFJ Realty Corp., 307 AD2d 957 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 622 [2004]). Carney’s contention that her right of redemption continued until delivery of the referee’s deed is unsupported by case law (see GMAC Mtge. Corp. v Tuck, 299 AD2d 315, 316 [2002]; United Capital Corp. v 183 Lorraine St. Assoc., 251 AD2d 400 [1998]), and contradicted by the plain wording of RPAPL 1341, which “does not allow for a discretionary interpretation or application” (Gabriel v 351 St. Nicholas Equities, 168 AD2d 338, 339 [1990]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32074(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 287, 853 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-v-carney-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack