Opinion
2013-02-19
TRIBECA LENDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gregory M. BARTLETT, etc., Defendant–Appellant.
Gregory M. Bartlett, appellant pro se. Jill C. Lesser, New York, for respondent.
Gregory M. Bartlett, appellant pro se. Jill C. Lesser, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Even if the appraisal report were newly discovered and therefore a proper basis for renewal after our affirmance of the prior order (84 A.D.3d 496, 923 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1st Dept. 2011] ) ( see Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 374, 377, 720 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept. 2001] ), the motion would be denied because the appraisal report would not change the prior determination ( see CPLR 2221[e][2]; New Heaven Props. v. Grinberg, 302 A.D.2d 331, 754 N.Y.S.2d 877 [1st Dept. 2003] ). There is no evidence to support attributing to plaintiff lender any possible fraud by the appraiser of defendant's property in connection with his mortgage loan.
We perceive no basis for granting plaintiff's request for sanctions on appeal.