Bank of N.Y. v Yosi Shem-Tov

Bank of N.Y. v Yosi Shem-Tov 2013 NY Slip Op 05866 Decided on September 18, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 18, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
L. PRISCILLA HALL
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2012-05867
(Index No. 17125/08)

[*1]Bank of New York, etc., respondent,

v

Yosi Shem-Tov, also known as Yosi Shemtov, also known as Yosi Shem Tov, appellant, et al., defendants.




Ginsburg & Misk, Queens Village, N.Y. (Hal R. Ginsburg of
counsel), for appellant.
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C., New Rochelle, N.Y.
(Matthew Russell of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Yosi Shem-Tov, also known as Yosi Shemtov, also known as Yosi Shem Tov appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated April 27, 2012, as denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate a foreclosure sale on the ground that the sale was conducted in violation of a stay which had been previously imposed by an order to show cause of the same court.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Yosi Shem-Tov, also known as Yosi Shemtov, also known as Yosi Shem Tov (hereinafter the appellant), moved to vacate a foreclosure sale, inter alia, on the ground that the sale was conducted in violation of a stay which had been previously imposed by an order to show cause of the same court. However, as the Supreme Court noted, the appellant failed to show that the order to show cause staying the foreclosure sale was, as required by its terms, personally served upon the referee (see Lenders Capital LLC v Ranu Realty Corp., 99 AD3d 566).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

The Supreme Court therefore properly denied that branch of the appellant's motion which was to vacate the foreclosure sale.
ENG, P.J., RIVERA, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court