Opinion
March 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 28, 1990, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 15, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated November 15, 1990, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the defendant Won Teh Hwang.
CPLR 5015 permits vacatur of a judgment for fraud in the procurement of the judgment itself, not for the fraud alleged in the pleadings (see, Fidelity N.Y. v Hanover Cos., 162 A.D.2d 582; Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. Maintenance Corp., 128 A.D.2d 821). The defendants' attack on the judgment obtained by MAA Associates was properly rejected.
We agree with Supreme Court, Queens County, that the issue of the leasehold is not properly raised on these papers. The defendants' request that restitution from Dunkin' Donuts be in the form of donut shop equipment rather than cash is academic, as summary judgment in favor of Dunkin' Donuts has been granted in Action No. 1 (see, Dunkin' Donuts v HWT Assocs., 181 A.D.2d 711 [decided herewith]). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.