You are here: / / REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT...

REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s alleged setting of an “upset price” which violated Kings County Supreme Court Civil Term Rules did not warrant setting aside the foreclosure sale:

RPAPL 231 provides, in relevant part, that a court, within one year after a foreclosure sale, “may set the sale aside for failure to comply with the provisions of this section as to the notice, time or manner of such sale if a substantial right of a party was prejudiced by the defect” (RPAPL 231[6]). ” In the exercise of its equitable powers, a court has the discretion to set aside a foreclosure sale where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct'” … . In order to provide a basis for setting aside a sale, the evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct must cast suspicion on the fairness of the sale … . Furthermore, evidence of a unilateral mistake at the foreclosure sale, without more, does not provide a basis to invalidate a sale that was otherwise lawfully conducted … , and belated and unsubstantiated claims are insufficient to establish the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct … . Moreover, mere irregularities by a referee may be disregarded if they do not affect a substantial right of a party … . Clinton Hill Holding 1, LLC v Kathy & Tania, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05844, 1st Dept 8-24-16

FORECLOSURE (REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE)

You might also like
NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF.
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION; THE DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY TOLD PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN THAT PLAINTIFF WAS BANNED FROM DEFENDANT’S PHARMACY FOR STEALING (SECOND DEPT).
Even Though the Landlords Maintained Offices Adjacent to the Leased Property (a Restaurant), the Plaintiff Was Not Able to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Landlords Retained Control Over the Leased Premises Such that the Landlords Would Be Liable for an Assault by Employees and Patrons of the Tenant-Restaurant
THE INCLUSION OF OTHER MATERIAL IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND WHICH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS WAIVED IF NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, IT MAY BE ADDED TO AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference Between Special Use Permit and Use Variance Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MAINTENANCE PORTION OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT UNCONSCIONABLE. NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT...