Opinion
10-30-2014
TRIBECA LENDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gregory M. BARTLETT formerly known as Gregory Hill, Defendant–Appellant, NYS Department of Taxation & Finance, et al., Defendants.
David Stein, Brooklyn, for appellant. Jill C. Lesser, New York, for respondent.
David Stein, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Jill C. Lesser, New York, for respondent.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered December 4, 2013, which denied defendant-appellant's (defendant) motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) and (4), or, alternatively, to renew a prior motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The alleged defects raised by defendant do not involve jurisdictional defects within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(4), and thus do not provide a basis for vacatur under that provision (Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Levin, 101 A.D.3d 1519, 1521, 958 N.Y.S.2d 227 [3d Dept.2012], lv. dismissed 21 N.Y.3d 887, 965 N.Y.S.2d 780, 988 N.E.2d 516 [2013] [lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect]; see Matapos Tech. Ltd. v. Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda, 68 A.D.3d 672, 673, 891 N.Y.S.2d 394 [1st Dept.2009] [lack of a certificate of conformity is “not a fatal defect”]; see also Varon v. Ciervo, 170 A.D.2d 446, 447, 565 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2d Dept.1991] [untimely filing of proof of service is not a basis to vacate a notice of pendency] ).
Nor is defendant entitled to vacatur on the ground of newly-discovered evidence (CPLR 5015[a][2] ). The alleged transfer of the subject mortgage, which purportedly occurred after the entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale, is not “newly-discovered evidence” within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(2) (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Quinn, 101 A.D.3d 793, 954 N.Y.S.2d 897 [2d Dept.2012] ).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to renew, as he failed to offer a reasonable justification for not presenting the alleged new facts on his prior motions (see CPLR 2221[e][3] ; Henry v. Peguero, 72 A.D.3d 600, 602–603, 900 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1st Dept.2010], appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 820, 908 N.Y.S.2d 152, 934 N.E.2d 886 [2010] ; see also 84 A.D.3d 496, 923 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1st Dept.2011]and 103 A.D.3d 516, 959 N.Y.S.2d 432 [1st Dept.2013] ).
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ., concur.