From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Behringer v. 19407 Linden, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 11, 2016
139 A.D.3d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

05-11-2016

James BEHRINGER, respondent, v. 19407 LINDEN, LLC, also known as 194–07 Linden, LLC, et al., defendants, Ali Abdullah Sadiq, et al., appellants.

Roberto L. Pagan Lopez, Long Island City, N.Y., for appellants. Robert Lee Aitken (Law Offices of Michelle S. Russo, P.C., Port Washington, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.


Roberto L. Pagan Lopez, Long Island City, N.Y., for appellants. Robert Lee Aitken (Law Offices of Michelle S. Russo, P.C., Port Washington, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Ali Abdullah Sadiq and Ellen Sadiq appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raffaele, J.), entered June 16, 2015, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), in effect, to vacate an order of the same court (Rios, J.) entered January 14, 2010, granting the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, “lack of standing is not a defect that deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction for purposes of CPLR 5015(a)(4) ” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters, 127 A.D.3d 742, 743, 9 N.Y.S.3d 58 ; see Lacks v. Lacks, 41 N.Y.2d 71, 74–75, 390 N.Y.S.2d 875, 359 N.E.2d 384 ; Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Levin, 101 A.D.3d 1519, 1521, 958 N.Y.S.2d 227 ). Accordingly, that branch of the appellants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) was properly denied.

The appellants' request for vacatur under CPLR 5015(a)(3) was also properly denied (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Smith, 132 A.D.3d 848, 851, 19 N.Y.S.3d 62 ; New Century Mtge. Corp. v. Corriette, 117 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 986 N.Y.S.2d 560 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d 765, 765–766, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554 ).

The appellants' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Behringer v. 19407 Linden, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 11, 2016
139 A.D.3d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Behringer v. 19407 Linden, LLC

Case Details

Full title:James BEHRINGER, respondent, v. 19407 LINDEN, LLC, also known as 194–07…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 11, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
29 N.Y.S.3d 816
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3693

Citing Cases

Sadiq v. Vitacco

These principles bar plaintiffs' request that the court remove the foreclosure case from New York courts.…

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Nath

The defendant failed to provide any evidence of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect…