From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fischman v. Gilmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 12, 1998
246 A.D.2d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

January 12, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the appellant moved to vacate a judgment of default entered against her based upon "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party" (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). The appellant alleged that the plaintiffs had obtained the underlying judgment of default through "intrinsic fraud" (Morel v. Clacherty, 186 A.D.2d 638, 639), rather than through "extrinsic fraud" (Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d 403). Therefore, she was required, inter alia, to show a reasonable excuse for her default (see, Morel v. Clacherty, supra; Berardo v. Berardo, 205 A.D.2d 1036). Having failed to do so, the court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate her default (Morel v. Clacherty, supra; Berardo v. Berardo, supra).

Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fischman v. Gilmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 12, 1998
246 A.D.2d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Fischman v. Gilmore

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH FISCHMAN et al., Respondents, v. MAGGIE GILMORE, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 12, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
666 N.Y.S.2d 942

Citing Cases

Wells v. Linzenberg

The defendant Karen Linzenberg, also known as Karen DeFiebre, failed to present a reasonable excuse for her…

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

She did not allege “extrinsic fraud,” which is “a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party…