Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tribeca Lending Corporation v Correa-Respondent's Brief by Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.

Tribeca Lending Corporation v Correa-Respondent's Brief by Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 931 |Likes:
Published by Nicholas M. Moccia
Issue: Whether Justice Joseph J. Maltese of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond, abused his discretion in vacating a default judgment of foreclosure and sale. Answer: No, he did not.
Issue: Whether Justice Joseph J. Maltese of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Richmond, abused his discretion in vacating a default judgment of foreclosure and sale. Answer: No, he did not.

More info:

Published by: Nicholas M. Moccia on Jun 04, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/24/2013

pdf

 
Supreme Court of the State of New YorkAppellate Division:Second Department
BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
DICK BAILEY SERVICE
(212) 608-7666 (718) 522-4363 (516) 222-2470 (914) 682-0848 Fax: (718) 522-4024
1-800-531-2028
Supreme Court, Richmond County, Index No. 102011/07
AppellateDivisionCase No.2010-09133
TRIBECA LENDING CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
-against-ROSEMARY CORREA,
 Defendant-Respondent,
-and-AIDA CORREA, CITY OF NEW YORK PARKING VIOLATIONSBUREAU, MARIA RUBIA and ANTONIO RUBIA,
 Defendants.
T
O
B
E
A
RGUED
B
Y
:N
ICHOLAS
M. M
OCCIA
, E
SQ
.T
IME
R
EQUESTED
: 15 M
INUTES
 L
AW
O
FFICES
 
OF
R
OBERT
E. B
ROWN
, P.C.
 Attorneys for Defendant-Respondent 
44 Wall Street, 12th FloorNew York, New York 10005(212) 766-9779
On the Brief:
N
ICHOLAS
M. M
OCCIA
 R
OBERT
E. B
ROWN
 
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED............................1ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................3I. JUSTICE MALTESE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION,UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND INTHE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE, IN DETERMINING THATTHE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT HAS AN “EXCUSABLEDEFAULT” FOR THE PURPOSE OF VACATING THEPLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE...............3A. Plaintiff-Appellant misconstrues what constitutes an “excusabledefault” within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(1)......................................3i. Standard of Review.............................................................................4ii. Justice Maltese did not abuse his discretion in finding that theDefendant-Respondent had an “excusable default” within themeaning of CPLR 5015(a)(1) notwithstanding his finding thatthe Defendant-Respondent was personally served pursuant toCPLR 308(1).......................................................................................5iii. Justice Maltese did not abuse his discretion in basing hisfinding of an excusable default on post-judgment events..................7iv. Justice Maltese did not abuse his discretion in finding thatimproper or ineffective counsel in the residential foreclosurecontext constitutes an excusable default within the meaning of 5015(a)(1).........................................................................................10B. Plaintiff-Appellant disregards the trial court’s inherent power togrant relief from its own judgment for reasons not enumerated inCPLR 5015(a)...........................................................................................14
 
II. JUSTICE MALTESE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION INDETERMINING THAT THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT HADA MERITORIOUS DEFENSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CPLR5015(a)...........................................................................................................16
 
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................18
 
 1
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED
I. Did the Honorable Joseph J. Maltese, J.S.C., (“Justice Maltese”) abuse hisdiscretion, under the totality of the circumstances and in the furtherance of  justice, in determining that Defendant-Respondent had an “excusabledefault” within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(1) and in light of the inherent,non-statutory power courts have to relieve parties of judgments entered on adefault? Answer: No. Justice Maltese did not abuse his discretion, underthe totality of the circumstances and in the furtherance of justice, indetermining that the Defendant-Respondent had an “excusable default”within the meaning of CPLR 5015(a)(1). Moreover, the trial court in anycase has the inherent, non-statutory power to relieve the Defendant-Respondent of the judgment of foreclosure entered on default even in theabsence of any specific grounds set forth in
 
CPLR 5015(a)(1) since thestatute merely codifies some principal grounds and is not
 
exhaustive of thecourt’s power.II. Did Justice Maltese abuse his discretion in determining that the Defendant-Respondent made a
 prima facie
showing that it had meritorious defenseswarranting a vacatur of the Plaintiff-Appellant’s judgment of foreclosure?Answer: No. Justice Maltese did not abuse his discretion in finding ameritorious defense even in the absence of “admissible evidence”, since a

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
LAWOSSY liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->