Opinion
2018–02209 Index No. 510328/15
10-06-2021
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., respondent, v. Sharon LE–MOND, appellant, et al., defendants.
Sharon Le–Mond, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC (Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Patrick G. Broderick and Ryan Sirianni ], of counsel), for respondent
Sharon Le–Mond, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC (Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Patrick G. Broderick and Ryan Sirianni ], of counsel), for respondent
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, BETSY BARROS, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Sharon Le–Mond appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated November 28, 2017. The order denied that defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated July 13, 2016, granting the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her and for an order of reference, and, thereupon, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her and on her counterclaim, among other things, to cancel and discharge of record the subject mortgage.
ORDERED that the order dated November 28, 2017, is affirmed, with costs.
To prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate an order awarding summary judgment in a foreclosure action, the proponent must establish that the opponent procured the order by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct (see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Kish, 192 A.D.3d 659, 139 N.Y.S.3d 897 ; Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v. Norlin Corp., 128 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 11 N.Y.S.3d 104 ). Here, the appellant's broad, conclusory, and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff engaged in any fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct warranting vacatur of the order dated July 13, 2016, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Sukhu, 163 A.D.3d 748, 83 N.Y.S.3d 70 ; Golden First Bank v. Tal, 136 A.D.3d 974, 974–975, 25 N.Y.S.3d 638 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rooney, 132 A.D.3d 980, 983, 19 N.Y.S.3d 543 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, BARROS and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.