NYCTL 1999 TRUST v. Baroda Properties, Inc., et al., proposed intervenors-respondents.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

NYCTL 1999-1 TRUST, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. NY PRIDE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., defendants, Union Street Management Group, Ltd., appellant; Baroda Properties, Inc., et al., proposed intervenors-respondents.

Decided: November 28, 2006

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ. Anthony R. Mordente, P.C., Fresh Meadows, N.Y., for appellant. Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jamie C. Krapf of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents. Manton Sweeney Gallo Reich & Bolz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael H. Reich and John L. Wolthoff of counsel), for proposed intervenors-respondents.

In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendant Union Street Management Group, Ltd., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated March 31, 2005, which denied its motion to vacate the foreclosure sale.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

 The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate the foreclosure sale.   The appellant failed to establish that “a substantial right of a party was prejudiced” by the mere irregularities in the notice of sale (see RPAPL 231[6];  Key Corporate Capital v. Lindo, 304 A.D.2d 620, 757 N.Y.S.2d 476;  Amresco New England II v. Denino, 283 A.D.2d 599, 725 N.Y.S.2d 78;  Marine Midland Bank v. Trennes, 250 A.D.2d 653, 671 N.Y.S.2d 693;  Chemical Bank v. Gardner, 233 A.D.2d 606, 607, 649 N.Y.S.2d 243;  Marine Midland Bank v. Landsdowne Mgt. Assoc., 193 A.D.2d 1091, 1092, 598 N.Y.S.2d 630).

 Moreover, the appellant's contention that the foreclosure sale was not commercially reasonable is without merit.   The sale price of the property was not so low as to shock the conscience of the court and was at least 50% of the appellant's alleged appraised value of the property (see Guardian Loan Co. v. Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 521, 419 N.Y.S.2d 56, 392 N.E.2d 1240;  Provident Sav. Bank v. Bordes, 244 A.D.2d 470, 664 N.Y.S.2d 103;  Frank Buttermark Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Sagarese, 119 A.D.2d 540, 500 N.Y.S.2d 551;  Polish Nat. Alliance of Brooklyn v. White Eagle Hall Co., 98 A.D.2d 400, 407, 470 N.Y.S.2d 642).

Copied to clipboard