Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Gomelsky

Full title: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner(s) v. VICTOR GOMELSKY…

Court: District Court of Nassau County, First District

Date published: Oct 25, 2010

2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51833 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2010)

Opinion

SP 005354/10.

Decided October 25, 2010.

Rosenblum Bianco, LLP, Attorneys for Petitioner, Rockville Centre, New York, Victor Gomelsky, Respondent pro se, New York, Regina Kovtsun, Respondent, Hewlett, New York.

SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE, J.

In this holdover proceeding, Petitioner is seeking a final judgment of possession and warrant of eviction of the premises known as: "1330 Vian Avenue Hewlett, NY 11557" (hereafter referred to as "The premises"). Respondents have filed an order to show cause seeking a stay of this proceeding as well as an opportunity to challenge the foreclosure proceedings in the Nassau County Supreme Court.

The premises went into foreclosure in 2007. On October 16, 2007, the Supreme Court of Nassau County granted the lender judgment of foreclosure and sale. Respondent brought an Order to Show Cause on January 15, 2008 seeking to vacate or modify this judgment. The Order to Show Cause was denied on February 27, 2008.

The premises was sold to the Petitioner on May 18, 2010 and the Referee's Deed was delivered to Petitioner on July 23, 2010. Respondents still reside at the premises. A Notice to Quit was served to Respondents around August 10, 2010, with Respondent's term of occupancy expiring on September 3, 2010. Respondents did not surrender possession of the premises by September 3. Petitioner filed a Petition and Notice of Petition to recover the premises On October 5, 2010, Respondents moved by Order to Show Cause to stay this summary proceeding pending a Supreme Court proceeding to overturn the foreclosure.

The only evidence offered to justify this request and to support their claims that the foreclosure proceeding had errors is a newspaper article taken from the New York Times. The article is insufficient to establish that the foreclosure proceeding was flawed.

It is well known in both Federal and New York Courts that newspaper articles are generally inadmissible to prove the facts of a case because such articles are hearsay. See Downs v. New York Cent. R. Co., 47 NY 83 (1871); McAllister v. New York City Police Dep't, 49 F. Supp. 2d 688 (S.D.NY 1999).

Since the only evidence presented to this Court is the newspaper article, this Court must deny the Respondent's application.

This matter is set down for a trial for November 22, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. to determine the issues of possession and use and occupancy

So Ordered.