From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

IndyMac Bank v. Yano-Horoski

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-5

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., respondent, v. Diana J. YANO–HOROSKI, appellant, et al., defendants.

The Young Law Group, PLLC, Bohemia, N.Y. (Ivan E. Young of counsel), for appellant. *889Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allan J. Arffa, Robyn F. Tarnofsky, and Moira Kim Penza of counsel), for respondent.


The Young Law Group, PLLC, Bohemia, N.Y. (Ivan E. Young of counsel), for appellant. *889Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allan J. Arffa, Robyn F. Tarnofsky, and Moira Kim Penza of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Diana J. Yano–Horoski appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated February 6, 2012, as denied her motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 317 and 5015(a)(3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (McNulty, J.), dated January 12, 2009, entered upon her default in appearing or answering the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant was not entitled to vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 317, since she failed to demonstrate that she did not receive notice of this action in time to defend it ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Espejo, 92 A.D.3d 707, 709, 939 N.Y.S.2d 105;Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Matos, 77 A.D.3d 606, 607, 908 N.Y.S.2d 732). In addition, the defendant was not entitled to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3). Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant failed to move for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d 765, 765, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554;Rizzo v. St. Lawrence Univ., 24 A.D.3d 983, 984, 805 N.Y.S.2d 479). In any event, her claims of fraud are unsupported by the record ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d at 766, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554;Aames Capital Corp. v. Davidsohn, 24 A.D.3d 474, 475, 808 N.Y.S.2d 229).

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.

SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

IndyMac Bank v. Yano-Horoski

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

IndyMac Bank v. Yano-Horoski

Case Details

Full title:INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., respondent, v. Diana J. YANO–HOROSKI, appellant, et…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3971
965 N.Y.S.2d 888

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Braun

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of the defendants Moshe Braun and Yehudas Braun…

Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sloup

However, the notice of pendency requirement pursuant RPAPL 1331 was an “element” of the plaintiff's cause of…