Bankers Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. House

• Decision Date: 06 April 1992
• Citation: 182 A.D.2d 602,581 N.Y.S.2d 858
• Parties: BANKERS FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Evelyn B. HOUSE, Appellant, et al., Yoska Neman, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 858

581 N.Y.S.2d 858

182 A.D.2d 602

BANKERS FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Evelyn B. HOUSE, Appellant, et al., Yoska Neman, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

April 6, 1992.

Edward J. Waldman, Bellmore, for appellant.

Philip Irwin Aaron, P.C., Syosset (Andrew C. Morganstern, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Matthew D. Hunter, Forest Hills, for intervenors-respondents.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and EIBER, O'BRIEN and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Evelyn B. House appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated June 19, 1990, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and to set aside a foreclosure sale.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

It is well-settled that a court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, has the discretion to set aside a judicial sale where fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale (see, Guardian Loan Co. v. Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 521, 419 N.Y.S.2d 56, 392 N.E.2d 1240; Harbert Offset Corp. v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 174 A.D.2d 650, 571 N.Y.S.2d 507; Glenville & 110 Corp. v. Tortora, 137 A.D.2d 654, 655, 524 N.Y.S.2d 747; Polish Nat. Alliance of Brooklyn v. White Eagle Hall Co., 98 A.D.2d 400, 407, 470 N.Y.S.2d 642). In the absence of this type of conduct, the mere inadequacy of the price alone is insufficient reason to vacate an otherwise apparently fair judicial sale, unless it is found that the price is so inadequate as to shock the court's conscience (see, Harbert Offset Corp. v. Bowery Sav. Bank, supra; Matter of Kropp v. 480 Broadway Corp., 151 A.D.2d 574, 575, 542 N.Y.S.2d 682; Glenville & 110 Corp. v. Tortora, supra; Zisser v. Noah Indus. Mar. & Ship Repair, 129 A.D.2d 795, 796, 514 N.Y.S.2d 786; Frank Buttermark Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Sagarese, 119 A.D.2d 540, 500 N.Y.S.2d 551; Polish Nat. Alliance of Brooklyn v. White Eagle Hall Co., supra ). In the instant case, it is undisputed that the purchase price was not so low as to shock the conscience of the court. Although the appellant's plight may evoke some sympathy, the record here is devoid of any showing warranting intervention by a court of equity. The appellant makes no allegations, nor is there any evidence, of fraud,...