Opinion
September 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellant's excuse that it had relied on the bad advice of its former attorney in not contesting the foreclosure action. In sworn testimony given 14 months before the motion to vacate, appellant's principal acknowledged the likely practical effect of the anticipated foreclosure, demonstrating an understanding of the course charted inconsistent with a naive or inexperienced individual who could be forgiven for relying blindly on the advice of counsel. In any event, the proposed defense of estoppel was also properly rejected, there being no showing of any conduct by the foreclosing bank itself that induced appellant's reliance (see, Rose v. Spa Realty Assocs., 42 N.Y.2d 338, 344).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.