U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Sartini

Decision Date12 August 2020
Docket NumberIndex No. 63475/14,2018–03027
Citation186 A.D.3d 649,126 N.Y.S.3d 674 (Mem)
Parties U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. Robin SARTINI, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 649
126 N.Y.S.3d 674 (Mem)

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Respondent,
v.
Robin SARTINI, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

2018–03027
Index No. 63475/14

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

Argued—January 24, 2020
August 12, 2020


David A. Bythewood, Mineola, NY, for appellants.

Sandelands Eyet, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Cavanaugh of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

186 A.D.3d 649

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Robin Sartini and Michelle Sartini appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.), dated January 3, 2018. The order denied those defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated March 9, 2017.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, Robin Sartini and Michelle Sartini (hereinafter together the defendants) to foreclose a mortgage encumbering certain real property in Suffolk County. In 2015, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment and an order of reference. The defendants opposed that motion. In an order dated August 25,

2016, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion.

Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The Supreme Court granted the motion in an order dated March 9, 2017, and issued a judgment of foreclosure and sale on the same date.

The defendants subsequently moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, primarily contending that the plaintiff made certain misrepresentations in connection with documents submitted on its motions for summary judgment and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendants claimed, inter alia, that those documents were not properly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Bussey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 12, 2020
  • Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v. Cahill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 6, 2022
    ...motion to vacate cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal of the September 8, 2020 Order (citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Sartina, 186 A.D.3d 649 [2d Dept 2020]) CPLR 5015(a)(3) provides that "fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party" is a ground for vacating a j......
  • Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP v. Cahill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 6, 2022
    ...motion to vacate cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal of the September 8, 2020 Order (citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Sartina, 186 A.D.3d 649 [2d Dept 2020]) CPLR 5015(a)(3) provides that "fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party" is a ground for vacating a j......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT