MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Vazquez, 2024 NY Slip Op 05059 [231 AD3d 544]

October 15, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

[*1]

MTGLQ Investors, L.P., Respondent,

v

James Vazquez, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Jones Law, P.C., Warwick (Douglas M. Jones of counsel), for appellant.

Friedman Vartolo LLP, New York (Ronald P. Labeck of counsel), for respondent.

Aidala Bertuna & Kamins, P.C., New York (John M. Leventhal of counsel), for amicus curiae.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn III, J.), entered November 15, 2023, which denied defendant’s CPLR 5015 motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s CPLR 5015 (a) motion seeking to vacate the September 24, 2019 judgment of foreclosure and sale. Defendant identified no applicable basis to vacate the judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) through (5). While a court may vacate a judgment in the interests of substantial justice ( Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp. , 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]), a change in the law by itself does not warrant vacatur in the interests of justice ( see e.g. Redeye v Progressive Ins. Co. , 158 AD3d 1208 , 1209 [4th Dept 2018]). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the discontinuance of the 2005 proceeding in 2011, which acted to “de-accelerate” the loan, was rooted in “fraud, mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” ( Go Sweat, LLC v GRA Legal Title Trust 2013-1, U.S. Bank, N.A. , 225 AD3d 486 , 487 [1st Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 5015 [a]).

The motion court also properly declined to treat defendant’s motion as one to renew, as the motion was not specifically identified as such ( see CPLR 2221 [e] [1]; People v Adams , 219 AD3d 1178 , 1183 n 2 [1st Dept 2023]). Concur—Webber, J.P., Kapnick, Kennedy, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.

Motion to file amicus curiae brief, granted..