| Morpurgo v Morpurgo |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07316 [77 AD3d 714] |
| October 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Helga Morpurgo, Also Known as Christine Stanley,Respondent, v Annselm Morpurgo, Also Known as Anna Selma Vinje Morpurgo, Appellant,et al., Defendants. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant Annselm Morpurgoappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Baisley, J.), dated July 8, 2009, as denied her motion to set aside the sale of the subject property.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
By order dated October 15, 2004, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion,among other things, to appoint a referee to sell the subject property, located at 6 Union Street in SagHarbor, at auction. In a subsequent order dated March 15, 2005, the Supreme Court appointed areferee to conduct the sale in accordance with certain terms (hereinafter the terms of sale).
By order dated August 7, 2007, the Supreme Court set the minimum bid for the property at$900,000 and directed the net proceeds to be distributed in equal 37.5% shares to the plaintiff and thedefendant, with the remaining 25% of the proceeds to be deposited with the Suffolk County Treasurerpending further determination of the Supreme Court.
After the referee failed to obtain a successful bid at the first three auctions of the property, heaccepted a bid at a fourth auction on October 12, 2007, in the amount of $1,460,000, which amountexceeded the minimum bid by more than 60%. The sale closed on April 3, 2008, after the refereegranted the purchaser three extensions of the closing date and imposed 9% interest on the purchaseprice from the initial date set for closing until the date on which the closing occurred.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to set aside the sale of the propertybased on the referee's extensions of the initial date set for closing (see CPLR 2003; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. vSchotter, 50 AD3d 983, 984 [2008]), and the alleged inadequacy of the sale price (see American Holdings Inv. Corp. v Josey,71 AD3d 927, 930 [2010]; Bankers Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v House, 182 AD2d 602[1992]). The terms of sale contemplated an adjournment of the closing date, subject to the impositionof 9% interest on the purchase price, which the referee properly assessed and collected from theoriginal date set for closing until the date on which the [*2]closingoccurred. Furthermore, the defendant effectively ratified the sale and forfeited her right to dispute thetransaction by accepting 37.5% of the proceeds of sale, which proceeds exceeded the minimum bidestablished by the Supreme Court by more than 60% (cf. Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d 957, 958[1982]; Matter of Hendrick Hudson Cent.School Dist. v Falinski, 71 AD3d 769 [2010]; Weissman v Weissman, 42 AD3d 448 [2007]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.