From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

02-00805

Argued April 25, 2002

June 3, 2002

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Michael R. Zotos appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.)., dated January 8, 2002, which denied his motion, inter alia, to set aside the sale of the subject premises to the plaintiff as void, and for a determination that he was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale.

Michael R. Zotos, Holtsville, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se.

Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine Huber, LLP, Rochester, N Y (Richard J. Evans, Jr., of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct as to warrant vacatur of the foreclosure sale and transfer of the premises to him (see Provident Sav. Bank v. Bordes, 244 A.D.2d 470; Citicorp Mtge. v. Strong, 227 A.D.2d 818; Green Point Sav. Bank v. Kandel, 224 A.D.2d 488). The appellant's contention that the plaintiff was not the highest bidder at the sale is without merit (see Citicorp Mtge. v. Strong, supra at 821).

FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Hinze

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW YORK MORTGAGE AGENCY, plaintiff-respondent, v. DAVID HINZE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v. Julian

The Plaintiff asserts that there was a mistake because it submitted the highest bid at the sale through its…