RICHARD SPICOLA RESPONDENT RESPONDENT v. << (2015)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

RICHARD SPICOLA, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

CA 14–00915

Decided: February 13, 2015

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK J. MORETTI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. NICHOLAS, PEROT, SMITH, BERNHARDT & ZOSH, P.C., AKRON (MICHAEL R. ZOSH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BANK OF AKRON, INTERESTED PARTY–RESPONDENT.

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (DANIEL E. SARZYNSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR INTERESTED PARTY–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 renewed motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) seeking to vacate the underlying judgment of foreclosure “for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” (Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 68; see Matter of County of Genesee [Butlak], _ AD3d _ [Jan. 2, 2015] ). Respondent moved to vacate the default judgment shortly after it was obtained and, in his renewed motion, “respondent established both his ability to pay the taxes after the redemption period had ended and the lack of any prejudice to petitioner” (Butlak, _ AD3d at _).

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Out of date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