Nyctl 2008-A Trust v. M&T Courts, LLC

• Decision Date: 18 November 2015
• Citation: 19 N.Y.S.3d 185 (Mem),133 A.D.3d 727,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08392
• Parties: NYCTL 2008–A TRUST, et al., respondents, v. M & T COURTS, LLC, et al., defendants, Four K Group, Inc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

133 A.D.3d 727

19 N.Y.S.3d 185 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08392

NYCTL 2008–A TRUST, et al., respondents,

v. M & T COURTS, LLC, et al., defendants,Four K Group, Inc., appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 18, 2015.

Korsinsky & Klein, LLP (Adler Legal, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Daniel H. Adler], of counsel), for appellant.

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Matthew Friedenbergof counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

In an action to foreclose on a tax lien, the defendant Four K Group, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), entered July 31, 2013, which denied its motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated September 26, 2011, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to confirm both the judgment of foreclosure and sale and the foreclosure sale held on February 7, 2012.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, it was not entitled to vacatur of the subject judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2)based on newly-discovered evidence (see Federated Conservationists of Westchester County v. County of Westchester, 4 A.D.3d 326, 327, 771 N.Y.S.2d 530), pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3)based on fraud or misrepresentation (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 11–301 et seq., see generally Brookmar Corp. v. Tax Commr. of City of N.Y., 13 Misc.3d 772, 773–774, 827 N.Y.S.2d 467 [Sup.Ct., Kings County]), or pursuant to the court's inherent power to vacate its own judgment in the interest of substantial justice (see Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325, 325, 19 N.E. 842).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and also properly granted the respondents' motion to confirm both the judgment of foreclosure and sale, as well as the subject foreclosure sale itself (see RPAPL 231(4); Weil v. Cerrato, 129 Misc.2d 1105, 1107, 495 N.Y.S.2d 306; see also Guardian Loan Co. v. Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 520–521, 419 N.Y.S.2d 56, 392 N.E.2d 1240).

MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTINand MALTESE, JJ., concur.