| Golden First Bank v Tal |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01291 [136 AD3d 974] |
| February 24, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Golden First Bank, Respondent, v Hersel Tal,Also Known as Herzel Tal, Appellant, et al., Defendants. 155 Chestnut, LLC, NonpartyRespondent. |
The Berkman Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, NY (Robert J. Tolchin of counsel), forappellant.
Berkman, Henoch, Peterson, Peddy & Fenchel, P.C., Garden City, NY (Bruce J.Bergman of counsel), for nonparty-respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Hersel Tal, also known as HerzelTal, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), enteredApril 9, 2014, which denied his motion to vacate or modify a judgment of foreclosureand sale of the same court (McCabe, J.), entered April 24, 2008, upon his failure toappear or answer the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate or modify thejudgment of foreclosure and sale entered April 24, 2008, upon his failure to appear oranswer the complaint. Vacatur could only be obtained by way of a motion to vacate thejudgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015 (see IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. vVincoli, 105 AD3d 704, 706 [2013]). Although the appellant did not designatehis motion as made pursuant to CPLR 5015, he contended that the judgment must bevacated based upon alleged acts of misconduct committed by the plaintiff and itsprincipal, which falls under CPLR 5015 (a) (3). However, the appellant failed to satisfyhis burden of establishing that the plaintiff procured the subject judgment of foreclosureand sale by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct (see Citimortgage, Inc. vBustamante, 107 AD3d 752, 753 [2013]; Onewest Bank, FSB v Martinez, 101 AD3d 969, 970[2012]). The appellant's broad, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and claims ofimproper practices in unrelated matters were not sufficient to meet his burden (seeCitimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante, 107 AD3d at 753; Onewest Bank, FSB vMartinez, 101 AD3d at 970; Bank of N.Y. v Stradford, 55 AD3d 765, 766 [2008]).
The appellant's remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court,without merit, or refer to matter dehors the record. Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese andBarros, JJ., concur.