Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

Fischman v. Gilmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 12, 1998

246 A.D.2d 508; 666 N.Y.S.2d 942; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 141

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Bank of New York v. Lagakos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Glukhman v. Bay 49th St. Condominium, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Glukhman v. Bay 49th St. Condominium, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Wider (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Wider (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Wells Fargo Bank v. Linzenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Bank of New York v. Stradford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Behette v. Berry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

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, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Maggie Gilmore appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated November 21, 1996, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate a judgment of default entered upon her failure to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the appellant moved to vacate a judgment of default entered against her based upon “fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). The appellant alleged that the plaintiffs had obtained the underlying judgment of default through “intrinsic fraud” (Morel v Clacherty, 186 AD2d 638, 639), rather than through “extrinsic fraud” (Shaw v Shaw, 97 AD2d 403). Therefore, she was required, inter alia, to show a reasonable excuse for her default (see, Morel v Clacherty, supra; Berardo v Berardo, 205 AD2d 1036). Having failed to do so, the court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate her default (Morel v Clacherty, supra; Berardo v Berardo, supra). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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