Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 21 December 2010 |
| Citation | 916 N.Y.S.2d 116,79 A.D.3d 1018 |
| Parties | TRIBECA LENDING CORP., appellant-respondent, v. Linda CRAWFORD, respondent-appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
79 A.D.3d 1018
TRIBECA LENDING CORP., appellant-respondent,
v.
Linda CRAWFORD, respondent-appellant, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 21, 2010.
Berkman, Henoch, Peterson, Peddy & Fenchel, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Bruce J. Bergman, Alan J. Waintraub, and Michael J. Bonneville of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Chittur & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Krishnan S. Chittur of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated November 20, 2009, as, upon denying the motion of the defendant Linda Crawford, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 317 to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered August 10, 2006, upon her default in answering, sua sponte, stayed enforcement of the judgment of foreclosure and sale pending the determination of a subsequently commenced federal action entitled Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgt. Corp., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Docket No. 08-CV-6293, and the defendant Linda Crawford cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied her motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 317 to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the plaintiff's notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted ( see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Linda Crawford (hereinafter the defendant) which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In this regard, the process
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffryes v. Vance
...Group, P.C. v. X & Y Dev. Group, LLC, 88 A.D.3d 768, 770, 930 N.Y.S.2d 652 (2d Dep't 2011) ; Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Crawford, 79 A.D.3d 1018, 1020, 916 N.Y.S.2d 116 (2d Dep't 2010). Such interim relief also would collaterally attack the denial of disqualification already determined by the......
-
Aarismaa v. (In re Estate of Wagner)
...Surrogate ( see Abbott v. Crown Mill Restoration Dev., LLC, 109 A.D.3d 1097, 1100, 972 N.Y.S.2d 117;Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Crawford, 79 A.D.3d 1018, 1020, 916 N.Y.S.2d 116,lv. dismissed16 N.Y.3d 783, 919 N.Y.S.2d 507, 944 N.E.2d 1147;Pollock v. Wilson, 26 A.D.3d 772, 772, 809 N.Y.S.2d 721......
-
Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgmt.
...Second Judicial Department, reversed the Rockland County Supreme Court's imposition of a stay. Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Crawford, 79 A.D.3d 1018, 1020, 916 N.Y.S.2d 116, 118 (App. Div. 2010). The Second Department held that the Rockland County Supreme Court had "improvidently exercised its ......
-
Thomas v. Lasalle Bank Nat. Ass'n
...circumstances which would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries concerning the transaction. Thus, under the first cause of79 A.D.3d 1018action alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff has a cause of action against the appellants for rescission of the subject mortgages ( see Luc......