Provident Savings Bank, F.A. v. Bordes
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nath (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. McGill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. McGill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. IPA Asset Management III (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. IPA Asset Management III (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Associate v. Hartridge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Schotter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Mei Yun Li v. Qing He Xu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v. NY Pride Holdings, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- NYCTL-1 Trust v. Liberty Bay Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB v. Bassi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Zapala (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
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, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated January 13, 1997, which denied their motion to vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that a court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, has the discretion to set aside a judicial sale where fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale (see, Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 521; Bankers Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v House, 182 AD2d 602; Harbert Offset Corp. v Bowery Sav. Bank, 174 AD2d 650). We find that no such acts occurred here justifying interference with this sale. It is equally well established that in the absence of that type of conduct, the mere inadequacy of the price alone is an insufficient reason to vacate an otherwise fair judicial sale, unless the price is so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court (see, Harbert Offset Corp. v Bowery Sav. Bank, supra, at 650; Glenville & 110 Corp. v Tortora, 137 AD2d 654). The sale price here which was equivalent to the mortgage balance plus sale expenses (see generally, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 407-408), was over 50% of the defendants’ appraised value of the property, and was not so unconscionably low so as to warrant vacatur of the sale. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.