| LaSalle Natl. Bank Assn. v Odato |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01785 [126 AD3d 675] |
| March 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| LaSalle National Bank Association,Respondent, v Tatiana Odato, Appellant, et al.,Defendants. |
Robert G. Leino, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Bonchonsky & Zaino, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Christopher J.W. Verby ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Tatiana Odato appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered March 4, 2014, whichdenied her third motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of thesame court dated April 22, 2009, entered upon her failure to appear or answer thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In July 2008, the plaintiff commenced the instant mortgage foreclosure action againstthe appellant, Tatiana Odato, among others. Upon the appellant's failure to appear oranswer the complaint, a judgment of foreclosure and sale was issued on April 22, 2009.After the foreclosure sale was held on June 17, 2009, the appellant moved, inter alia, tovacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. The motion was denied in an order datedJanuary 11, 2010, from which no appeal was taken. Thereafter, on June 4, 2010, theSupreme Court denied the appellant's motion for leave to reargue and renew her priormotion. In an order dated August 29, 2011, the court denied the appellant's secondmotion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. The appellant did notappeal from that order. In the order appealed from, which was entered March 4, 2014,the court denied the appellant's third motion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment offoreclosure and sale.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, a party, such as the appellant here, isprecluded from moving to vacate his or her default on grounds asserted in a prior motionto vacate the default that had been previously denied in an order from which that partytook no appeal, or on grounds that were apparent at the time that the party made the priormotion but were not asserted therein (see Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Brown, 112 AD3d 668, 670[2013]; Viva Dev. Corp. vUnited Humanitarian Relief Fund, 108 AD3d 619, 620 [2013]; JMP Pizza, LLC v 34th St. Pizza,LLC, 104 AD3d 648 [2013]; Lambert v Schreiber, 95 AD3d 1282, 1283 [2012]).Therefore, we need not address the appellant's remaining contentions. Accordingly, theSupreme Court properly denied the appellant's third motion, inter alia, to vacate thejudgment of foreclosure and sale. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Roman, JJ.,concur.