Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Mathis, CV 13-6352. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20160420h64 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER LEONARD D. WEXLER , District Judge . By this action, Plaintiff Eastern Savings Bank, FSB ("Eastern Savings" or "Plaintiff') seeks a judgment of foreclosure and sale on real estate premises located in Copaigue, New York, for the failure of Defendant Margaret Mathis a/k/a Margaret E. Mathis ("Mathis" or "Defendant") to make mortgage payments. By a Memorandum and Order dated January 20, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff summary judgment, and directed Plaintiff to submit an Amended Judgm
More

ORDER

By this action, Plaintiff Eastern Savings Bank, FSB ("Eastern Savings" or "Plaintiff') seeks a judgment of foreclosure and sale on real estate premises located in Copaigue, New York, for the failure of Defendant Margaret Mathis a/k/a Margaret E. Mathis ("Mathis" or "Defendant") to make mortgage payments. By a Memorandum and Order dated January 20, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff summary judgment, and directed Plaintiff to submit an Amended Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale within two weeks. Docket entry ("DE") 55.

On February 10, 2016, Defendant Mathis filed an affidavit as an Opposition to Motion to Amend Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale ("Opposition"). DE 58. Defendant's Opposition requests that the Court vacate the Judgment of Foreclosure and "allow [her] to go back to the bank to try for a Modification." DE 58, at 3. Plaintiff submitted a letter in response. DE 60.

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendants' Opposition and Plaintiffs letter in response. The Court will address the submission as a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or motion for reconsideration or reargument under Local Civil Rule 6.3.

The motion is denied. The Opposition restates the arguments previously considered by the Court in connection with the motion for summary judgment. It fails to raise issues of mistake or inadvertence, the existence of newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Accordingly, there is no basis to vacate pursuant to Rule 60(b). The Opposition further fails to raise any issues or arguments the Court may have overlooked to warrant reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Accordingly, the Court declines to vacate its order granting Plaintiff summary judgment. Plaintiffs proposed Amended Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale will be addressed in a separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer