Zaccaria v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zaccaria v. Russell

288 A.D.2d 468, 733 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11395

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 468 (Zaccaria v. Russell) 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

Zaccaria v. Russell, 288 A.D.2d 468, 733 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover on a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.H.O.), dated May 23, 2000, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated November 15, 1999, which is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2), as the plaintiff failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before entry of the judgment (see, Orix Credit Alliance v Grace Indus., 274 AD2d 424; Dan’s Supreme Supermarkets v Redmont Realty Co., 261 AD2d 353). The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the motion which was to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), as the plaintiff failed to show that it had been procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct (see, Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 257 AD2d 586).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover on a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.H.O.), dated May 23, 2000, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated November 15, 1999, which is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2), as the plaintiff failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before entry of the judgment (see, Orix Credit Alliance v Grace Indus., 274 AD2d 424; Dan’s Supreme Supermarkets v Redmont Realty Co., 261 AD2d 353). The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the motion which was to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), as the plaintiff failed to show that it had been procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct (see, Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 257 AD2d 586).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 468, 733 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaccaria-v-russell-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack