York Holdings, L. L. C. v. Shafran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

York Holdings, L. L. C. v. Shafran

278 A.D.2d 77, 719 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13062

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 77 (York Holdings, L. L. C. v. Shafran) 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

York Holdings, L. L. C. v. Shafran, 278 A.D.2d 77, 719 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered June 22, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Subsequent to the issuance of the presently appealed order, the property that was the subject of the disputed judgment of foreclosure and sale was sold at auction and that sale was confirmed in an Order of Confirmation issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The Order of Confirmation, from which defendant debtor took no appeal (see, 11 USC § 363 [m]) and which she did not timely seek to have set aside upon the ground that it had been fraudulently obtained (see, 11 USC § 1144), conclusively bars any further challenge by defendant to the authorization for the sale of the subject property (In re Maxwell Communication Corp., 93 F3d 1036, 1044; In re Oyster Bay Cove, 161 Bankr 338, 343, affd 196 Bankr 251), regardless of any potential merit to such challenge (In re Gucci, 105 F3d 837, 840, cert denied sub nom. Gucci Design Studio v Sinatra, 520 US 1196). This comports with the policy of finality in bankruptcy sales (see, United States v Salerno, 932 F2d 117, 123). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered June 22, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Subsequent to the issuance of the presently appealed order, the property that was the subject of the disputed judgment of foreclosure and sale was sold at auction and that sale was confirmed in an Order of Confirmation issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The Order of Confirmation, from which defendant debtor took no appeal (see, 11 USC § 363 [m]) and which she did not timely seek to have set aside upon the ground that it had been fraudulently obtained (see, 11 USC § 1144), conclusively bars any further challenge by defendant to the authorization for the sale of the subject property (In re Maxwell Communication Corp., 93 F3d 1036, 1044; In re Oyster Bay Cove, 161 Bankr 338, 343, affd 196 Bankr 251), regardless of any potential merit to such challenge (In re Gucci, 105 F3d 837, 840, cert denied sub nom. Gucci Design Studio v Sinatra, 520 US 1196). This comports with the policy of finality in bankruptcy sales (see, United States v Salerno, 932 F2d 117, 123). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 77, 719 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/york-holdings-l-l-c-v-shafran-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack