TIMOTHY BUTLAK RESPONDENT RESPONDENT v. << (2015)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

COUNTY OF GENESEE, PETITIONER–APPELLANT; TIMOTHY D. BUTLAK, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

CA 14–01027

Decided: January 02, 2015

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK J. MORETTI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. COOKE & STEFFAN, ALDEN (THOMAS A. STEFFAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting respondent's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) seeking to vacate the underlying judgment of foreclosure (see Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 68). Although respondent did not establish either a reasonable excuse for the default or a meritorious defense to the foreclosure proceeding, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion “for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” (id.). Petitioner obtained the default judgment on February 24, 2014, and respondent moved to vacate it shortly thereafter, on March 4, 2014. In addition, respondent established both his ability to pay the taxes after the redemption period had ended and the lack of any prejudice to petitioner (see id.; Matter of County of Ontario [Middlebrook], 59 AD3d 1065, 1065).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network