Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., respondent, v. Rudolph STRADFORD, et al., defendants; Southwest Capital Investments, et al., nonparty-appellants.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Southwest Capital Investments and Show Homes, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 21, 2007, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (Underwood, J.), entered September 23, 2004, upon the default of their assignor in appearing, and for leave to interpose an answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly denied the nonparty-appellants' motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), which provides that “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just ․ upon the ground of ․ fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” Although there is no express time limit for seeking relief from a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), a party is required to make the motion within a reasonable time (see Aames Capital Corp. v. Davidsohn, 24 A.D.3d 474, 475, 808 N.Y.S.2d 229; Miller v. Lanzisera, 273 A.D.2d 866, 868, 709 N.Y.S.2d 286). Here, the appellants' delay of more than two years after entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale in moving to vacate the judgment, despite their awareness of all relevant facts surrounding the issue, was unreasonable (see Rizzo v. St. Lawrence Univ., 24 A.D.3d 983, 984, 805 N.Y.S.2d 479). In any event, the appellants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the default, which is required when a CPLR 5015(a)(3) motion alleges intrinsic fraud, i.e., that the plaintiff's allegations are false (see Bank of N.Y. v. Lagakos, 27 A.D.3d 678, 679, 810 N.Y.S.2d 923; Fischman v. Gilmore, 246 A.D.2d 508, 666 N.Y.S.2d 942; Morel v. Clacherty, 186 A.D.2d 638, 639, 589 N.Y.S.2d 778). Furthermore, the appellants “offered nothing more than broad, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud on the part of [the] plaintiff” (Aames Capital Corp. v. Davidsohn, 24 A.D.3d 474, 475, 808 N.Y.S.2d 229 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 21, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)