Summary
recognizing an "unconscionably low" price as a factor in determining whether "exploitative overreaching" has occurred
Summary of this case from In re FuttermanOpinion
8843 Index 160469/15
04-02-2019
HITECH HOMES LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Tanya J. BURKE, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Zara Watkins, New York, for appellants. Altschul & Altschul, New York (Mark M. Altschul of counsel), for respondent.
Zara Watkins, New York, for appellants.
Altschul & Altschul, New York (Mark M. Altschul of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2017, which denied defendants' motion to vacate a judicial sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants failed to make the showing of substantial prejudice required to vacate a judicial sale on the ground of lack of notice provided for in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 231 (see RPAPL 231[6] ; CPLR 2003 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Martinez, 162 A.D.3d 528, 529, 79 N.Y.S.3d 144 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Marine Midland Bank v. Landsdowne Mgt. Assoc., 193 A.D.2d 1091, 1092, 598 N.Y.S.2d 630 [4th Dept. 1993], lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 656, 602 N.Y.S.2d 805, 622 N.E.2d 306 [1993] ).
Nor did defendants show that the sale should be set aside on the ground of "exploitative overreaching" ( U.S. Bank, 162 A.D.3d at 528, 79 N.Y.S.3d 144 ). They failed to establish, among other factors, that the auction price was unconscionably low—or even inadequate (see Guardian Loan Co. v. Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 521, 419 N.Y.S.2d 56, 392 N.E.2d 1240 [1979] ; Polish Natl. Alliance of Brooklyn v. White Eagle Hall Co., 98 A.D.2d 400, 408, 470 N.Y.S.2d 642 [2d Dept. 1983] ).