Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 9, 1997

240 A.D.2d 466; 659 N.Y.S.2d 784; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6086

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Richardson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Diaz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Staton v. Omwukeme (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Demakis v. Papadopoulos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Home Federal Savings Bank v. Mahood (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Leonard v. Grimes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Avco Mortgage Co. v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Key Bank USA v. Klein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated May 30, 1996, which, inter alia, denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s determination as to credibility at the hearing to determine whether the defendants had been served with process in the action is entitled to great deference on appeal, since it had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. Based upon that determination, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff obtained jurisdiction over the defendants (see, Citibank v Baronat, 238 AD2d 369; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Arrao, 100 AD2d 949; cf., Wern v D'Allessandro, 219 AD2d 646).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are academic in light of this determination. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.