NEWREZ LLC v. Allen J. Morton et al., Defendants. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn III, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Patsy J. Morton's (defendant) motion to vacate the foreclosure sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 1, 2024, which granted plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct a foreclosure sale, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 19, 2024, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendant's motion for leave to renew her opposition to plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Defendant's appeal from the August 1, 2024 order ratifying the judicial sale that occurred on May 24, 2023 is moot.  Title was ultimately transferred on August 14, 2024, and the appeal from that order does not seek restitution (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stranahan, 208 A.D.3d 1489, 1491, 174 N.Y.S.3d 178 [3d Dept. 2022];  see also Globe Trade Capital, LLC v. Hoey, 199 A.D.3d 764, 766, 158 N.Y.S.3d 132 [2d Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1164, 174 N.Y.S.3d 356, 195 N.E.3d 63 [2022]).

Defendant's appeal from the order denying her motion to renew is also moot.  In any event, the purported new facts would not have changed the court's determination, nor did she give a reasonable justification for previously omitting them (see CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]).

Defendant's various arguments concerning the propriety of the judgment of foreclosure and sale and the interlocutory orders preceding it, including whether the motion court properly considered various assignments of mortgage, whether plaintiff had standing, whether certain mortgages were invalid, the applicability of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, and various purported irregularities associated with the court's consideration of these papers, go to the propriety of the judgment.  This Court may not review those matters, as the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered February 15, 2022 was final as to them (see Dulberg v. Ebenhart, 68 A.D.2d 323, 327, 417 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 1979]), the judgment is not currently being appealed, and none of those matters concern the foreclosure sale proceedings.

This Court declines to sanction defendant for citing four nonexistent cases.  Although such citations should generally warrant sanctions, and a party's pro se status should not render the party immune, in this instance the Court is mindful to afford leniency to the pro se defendant (see Dowlah v. Professional Staff Congress [PSC–CUNY], 227 A.D.3d 609, 610, 213 N.Y.S.3d 13 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 911, 2025 WL 84301 [2025]).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.