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.
PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, respondent, v. Tommy Kwong Yu LEE, appellant, et al., defendants.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Tommy Kwong Yu Lee appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (David P. Sullivan, J.), entered September 21, 2023. The order denied those branches of the defendant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered February 21, 2018, as amended November 30, 2022, and to stay a foreclosure sale scheduled for April 4, 2023.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In September 2015, Sperry Associates Federal Credit Union (hereinafter Sperry) commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, the defendant Tommy Kwong Yu Lee (hereinafter the defendant). In February 2018, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of Sperry, which was affirmed by this Court in a decision and order dated April 21, 2021 (see Sperry Assoc. Fed. Credit Union v Lee, 193 AD3d 1012). After a merger of Sperry into the plaintiff, Pentagon Federal Credit Union, in an order entered December 1, 2022, the court granted Sperry's motion to amend the caption to substitute the plaintiff in Sperry's place. Thereafter, a foreclosure sale was scheduled for April 4, 2023.
In March 2023, the defendant moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, as amended November 30, 2022, and to stay the April 4, 2023 foreclosure sale. In an order entered September 21, 2023, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's motion. The defendant appeals.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his request to toll interest accruing on the amount due under the judgment of foreclosure and sale is not properly before this Court, as the Supreme Court did not deny such relief in the order appealed from (see Fields v Pinkney, 242 AD3d 948, 950).
CONNOLLY, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 2023–12133
Decided: July 08, 2026
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)