“Intrinsic” Versus “Extrinsic” Fraud as the Basis of a Motion to Open a Default Judgment/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect
In the context of a mortgage foreclosure, the defendant made a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to open a default judgment. The Second Department determined the motion was properly denied and explained the difference between allegations of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” fraud as the basis of the motion. The court noted that a lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect:
The defendant alleged, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), that the plaintiff committed “intrinsic fraud,” by submitting fraudulent documents in support of its claim for a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . She did not allege “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” … . Therefore, the defendant was required to show a reasonable excuse for her default … . However, she failed to offer any excuse for her default … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 2015 NY Slip Op 02757, 2nd Dept 4-1-15