GREEN POINT SAVINGS BANK v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 19 April 1999 |
| Citation | 260 A.D.2d 543,688 N.Y.S.2d 595 |
| Parties | GREEN POINT SAVINGS BANK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MICHAEL ARNOLD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon his default in appearing. To the extent that the motion was made pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), such a motion must be made within a reasonable time (see, City of Albany Indus. Dev. Agency v Garg, 250 AD2d 991; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5015:3, at 465). In the instant case, the defendant waited until almost four years had elapsed from the time that he was served with a copy of the judgment with notice of entry. Thus, his motion was not made within a reasonable time (see, City of Albany Indus. Dev. Agency v Garg, supra). To the extent that the motion was made pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), it was not timely (see, City of Albany Indus. Dev. Agency v Garg, supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mark v. Lenfest
...and more than 4 1/2 years after the February 2003 dismissal. This is clearly not a reasonable time ( see Green Point Sav. Bank v. Arnold, 260 A.D.2d 543, 688 N.Y.S.2d 595 [1999]; City of Albany Indus. Dev. Agency v. Garg, 250 A.D.2d 991, 993, 672 N.Y.S.2d 541 [1998] ). It was not an improvi......
- Tan v. Tan