From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Onewest Bank, FSB v. Martinez

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 19, 2012
101 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-19

ONEWEST BANK, FSB, respondent, v. Dina MARTINEZ, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Campos, Lazar & Martin, PLLC, West Islip, N.Y. (Richard G. Martin of counsel), for appellants. Fein, Such & Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael S. Hanusek of counsel), for respondent.


Campos, Lazar & Martin, PLLC, West Islip, N.Y. (Richard G. Martin of counsel), for appellants. Fein, Such & Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael S. Hanusek of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Dina Martinez and Alnulfo Martinez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated July 5, 2011, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015, in effect, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered August 16, 2010, upon their default in appearing or answering the complaint, to set aside the foreclosure sale held pursuant thereto, and to vacate the referee's deed in foreclosure.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015, in effect, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered August 16, 2010, upon their default in appearing or answering the complaint, to set aside the foreclosure sale held pursuant thereto, and to vacate the referee's deed in foreclosure. As to those branches of the appellants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), in effect, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Slavinski, 78 A.D.3d 1167, 1167–1168, 912 N.Y.S.2d 285;Dorrer v. Berry, 37 A.D.3d 519, 520, 830 N.Y.S.2d 277). As to those branches which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), the appellants failed to establish that the plaintiff procured the judgment of foreclosure and sale by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct ( see Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Hornes, 94 A.D.3d 755, 755, 942 N.Y.S.2d 129).

MASTRO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Onewest Bank, FSB v. Martinez

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 19, 2012
101 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Onewest Bank, FSB v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:ONEWEST BANK, FSB, respondent, v. Dina MARTINEZ, et al., appellants, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 19, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8705
955 N.Y.S.2d 532

Citing Cases

Golden First Bank v. Tal

Vacatur could only be obtained by way of a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to…

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Austin Diagnostic Med., P.C.

On or about September 21, 2015, about three-months late, without consent from the plaintiffs, the defendant…