JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Usha Dev
| Decision Date | 02 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 3575/13,2017-00749,2017-00954 |
| Citation | 176 A.D.3d 691,110 N.Y.S.3d 127 |
| Parties | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. Usha DEV, etc., et al., Defendants, Mohammed B. Quaizar, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harvey Sorid, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Leopold & Associates, PLLC, Armonk, N.Y. (Fernando C. Rivera–Maissonet of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mohammed B. Quaizar appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Timothy J. Dufficy, J.), entered June 3, 2016, and (2) a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered November 22, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm a referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and denied those branches of the cross motion of the defendant Mohammed B. Quaizar which were to vacate an order of the same court dated June 5, 2015, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him, to strike his answer, and for an order of reference, and for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him. The judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon the ordered entered June 3, 2016, confirmed the referee's report and directed the sale of the subject property.
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeal from the order entered June 3, 2016, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale in the action (see Matter of Aho , 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ; Matter of Aho , 39 N.Y.2d at 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ).
In February 2013, the plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, the defendant Mohammed B. Quaizar (hereinafter the defendant). The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike the defendant's answer, and for an order of reference. The defendant did not oppose that motion. In an order dated June 5, 2015, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to confirm a referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendant cross-moved, inter alia, to vacate the order dated June 5, 2015, and for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him. In an order entered June 3, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendant's cross motion. On November 22, 2016, the court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale confirming the referee's report and directing the sale of the subject property. The defendant appeals.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to vacate the order dated June 5, 2015, which granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him, to strike his answer, and for an order of reference. "Under CPLR 5015(a), the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, upon the ground of excusable default; newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order; or reversal, modification, or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based" ( Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Dorfman , 170 A.D.3d 786, 788, 96 N.Y.S.3d 152 ; see CPLR 5015[a] ; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Russo , 167 A.D.3d 913, 914, 91 N.Y.S.3d 122 ). "However, CPLR 5015(a) does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a default judgment [or order] may be vacated, and a court may vacate its own judgment [or order] for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice" ( 40 BP, LLC v. Katatikarn , 147 A.D.3d 710, 711, 46 N.Y.S.3d 217 ). Although the Supreme Court retains "inherent discretionary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.Y. Mortg. Agency v. Braun, 2016–12588
...( id. at 739, 472 N.Y.S.2d 913, 460 N.E.2d 1348 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Dev, 176 A.D.3d 691, 692, 110 N.Y.S.3d 127 ). Here, the court ordered dismissal of the complaint after considering two rounds of briefing, and upon conducting......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. Nat'l Ass'n v. Hsu
...and a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice" ( JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Dev, 176 A.D.3d 691, 692, 110 N.Y.S.3d 127, quoting 40 BP, LLC v. Katatikarn, 147 A.D.3d 710, 711, 46 N.Y.S.3d 217 ; see Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Cohen, ......
-
United Airconditioning Corp. v. Axis Piping, Inc.
...court's vacatur of the December 2016 order was an improvident exercise of discretion (see id. ; see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Dev, 176 A.D.3d 691, 692–693, 110 N.Y.S.3d 127 ). United argues that the Supreme Court's vacatur of the December 2016 order, and its related determination th......
-
Beckford ex rel. McKenzie v. Morse-Spalding
...been perpetrated upon the court and/or in the interest of justice. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Dev , 176 AD3d 691, 692-693, 110 N.Y.S.3d 127, 129, 2019 NY Slip Op. 07059, 2019 WL 4849355 (AD 2nd Dept 2019) : ‘However, CPLR 5015(a) does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a......