From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bank of New York v. Lagakos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 2006
27 A.D.3d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-03138.

March 28, 2006.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sotirios J. Lagakos and Donna M. Lagakos appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated February 24, 2005, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), entered March 31, 2004, upon their default in appearing or answering.

Stern Rindner, Goshen, N.Y. (Mark D. Stern of counsel), for appellants.

Druckman Sinel, LLP, Westbury, N.Y. (Dan M. Blumenthal of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Jacobowitz Gubits, LLP, Walden, N.Y. (Mark T. Starkman of counsel), for nonparty-respondent.

Before: Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.


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

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sotirios J. Lagakos and Donna M. Lagakos (hereinafter the defendants) moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate a default judgment entered against them based upon the alleged "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct" of the plaintiff (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). The defendants alleged that the plaintiff obtained the underlying default judgment through "intrinsic fraud," i.e., that the plaintiff's allegations as to the defendants' default on the mortgage were false ( Morel v. Clacherty, 186 AD2d 638, 639), rather than through "extrinsic fraud," which is "a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter" ( Shaw v. Shaw, 97 AD2d 403). The defendants were therefore required to show a reasonable excuse for their default ( see Fischman v. Gilmore, 246 AD2d 508; Berardo v. Berardo, 205 AD2d 1036; Morel v. Clacherty, supra). Since the defendants failed to do so, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate their default ( see Fischman v. Gilmore, supra; Berardo v. Berardo, supra; Morel v. Clacherty, supra).

The defendants' remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.


Summaries of

Bank of New York v. Lagakos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 2006
27 A.D.3d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Bank of New York v. Lagakos

Case Details

Full title:BANK OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SOTIRIOS J. LAGAKOS et al., Appellants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 28, 2006

Citations

27 A.D.3d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2320
810 N.Y.S.2d 923

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Coletta

The appellants failed to move for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) within a reasonable time after entry of…

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters

The defendant alleged, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), that the plaintiff committed “intrinsic fraud,” by…