IndyMac Bank v. Yano-Horoski
| Decision Date | 05 June 2013 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., respondent, v. Diana J. YANO–HOROSKI, appellant, et al., defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
The Young Law Group, PLLC, Bohemia, N.Y. (Ivan E. Young of counsel), for appellant.
*889Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allan J. Arffa, Robyn F. Tarnofsky, and Moira Kim Penza of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Diana J. Yano–Horoski appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated February 6, 2012, as denied her motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 317 and 5015(a)(3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (McNulty, J.), dated January 12, 2009, entered upon her default in appearing or answering the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant was not entitled to vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 317, since she failed to demonstrate that she did not receive notice of this action in time to defend it ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Espejo, 92 A.D.3d 707, 709, 939 N.Y.S.2d 105;Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Matos, 77 A.D.3d 606, 607, 908 N.Y.S.2d 732). In addition, the defendant was not entitled to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3). Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant failed to move for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d 765, 765, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554;Rizzo v. St. Lawrence Univ., 24 A.D.3d 983, 984, 805 N.Y.S.2d 479). In any event, her claims of fraud are unsupported by the record ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d at 766, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554;Aames Capital Corp. v. Davidsohn, 24 A.D.3d 474, 475, 808 N.Y.S.2d 229).
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnav Indus., Inc. v., Index No. 13965/1990
...5015(a)(3) must be brought within a reasonable time. Mark v. Lenfest, 80 A.D.3d 426, 426 (1st Dep't 2011); Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 107 A.D.3d 672, 672 (2d Dep't 2013). When a fraud ought to have been discovered with reasonable diligence depends on when the circumstances sugges......
- Trapani v. Squitieri
- Marine v. Camissa
-
Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sloup
...a reasonable time after entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale warranted the denial of her motion (see Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano–Horoski, 107 A.D.3d 672, 965 N.Y.S.2d 888 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d 765, 765–766, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554 ).Accordingly, we affirm the order insof......