Putnam County Nat. Bank of Carmel v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 02 May 1994 |
| Citation | 614 N.Y.S.2d 149,204 A.D.2d 297 |
| Parties | PUTNAM COUNTY NATIONAL BANK OF CARMEL, Respondent, v. Richard SIMPSON a/k/a Richard Simpson, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard Simpson and Annie Simpson, pro se.
John A. Porco, P.C., Carmel, for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Richard Simpson and Annie Simpson appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated February 25, 1992, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (Dickinson, J.), dated April 10, 1991.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the appellants' general contention that a court which renders a judgment possesses broad, inherent discretion to vacate it on such terms as are just (see, CPLR 5015[a]; see, Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325, 19 N.E. 842). However, in this case, even assuming that the appellants' claims make out extrinsic fraud in the procurement of the default judgment of foreclosure which constituted a reasonable excuse for their default, and that they were not required to establish a meritorious defense (see, Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d 403, 467 N.Y.S.2d 231), we nevertheless conclude that the appellants failed to establish any conduct by the plaintiff bank that prevented them from fully and fairly litigating this matter (see, Christ-Mitch Realty Corp. v. Clarkson Realty Corp., 122 A.D.2d 245, 505 N.Y.S.2d 440; cf., Sirota v. Kloogman, 140 A.D.2d 426, 528 N.Y.S.2d 127; see also, Barrett v. Littles, 201 A.D.2d 444, 607 N.Y.S.2d 134). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants' motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heidari v. First Advance Funding Corp., 2007 NY Slip Op 32895(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2007), 0004878/2007
...still would have to show that this conduct "prevented them from fully and fairly litigating this matter." Putnam County Nat. Bank of Carmel v. Simpson, 204 A.D.2d 297 (2nd Dept. 1994). This they failed to do. It was defendants' negligence in misplacing the papers, not anything done by plain......
-
Simpson v. Putnam County Nat. Bank of Carmel
...to vacate the judgment of foreclosure. On May 2, 1994, the Appellate Division affirmed the order. Putnam County Nat'l Bank of Carmel v. Simpson, 204 A.D.2d 297, 614 N.Y.S.2d 149 (2d Dept.1994). On April 9, 1992, Simpson commenced proceedings pursuant to Chapter 11 in the United States Bankr......
-
Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Oberstein
...Registration Sys., Inc. v. Schotter, 50 A.D.3d 983, 857 N.Y.S.2d 592 ; Putnam County Natl. Bank of Carmel v. Simpson, 204 A.D.2d 297, 614 N.Y.S.2d 149 ; cf. Avenoso v. Avenoso, 266 A.D.2d 326, 698 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d at 403, 467 N.Y.S.2d 231 ). Moreover, 146 A.D.3d 946des......
-
Globe Trade Capital LLC v. Hoey
...908 [1979]; Chemical Bank v Vazquez, 234 A.D.2d 253, 650 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2d Dept 1996]; Putnam County Natl. Bank of Carmel v Simpson, 204 A.D.2d 297, 614 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2d Dept 1994]). Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) a judgment will be vacated and the default excused if the movant articulates an e......