NewRez LLC v. Morton (Oct. 2, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
Oct. 2, 2025
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.NewRez LLC v. MortonSupreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. | October 2, 2025 | --- N.Y.S.3d ---- |2025 WL 2798094Document Detailsstandard Citation:NewRez LLC v. Morton, No. 2024-05483, 2025 WL 2798094 (N.Y.App. Div. Oct. 2, 2025)All Citations:--- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2025 WL 2798094 (Mem), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05305Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:New YorkDelivery DetailsDate:October 9, 2025 at 3:18 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineAttorneys and LawFirms (p.1)Opinion (p.1)All Citations (p.1)
NewRez LLC v. Morton, --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2025)2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05305 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2798094Supreme Court, Appellate Division,First Department, New York.NEWREZ LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.Patsy J. MORTON, Defendant–Appellant,Allen J. Morton et al., Defendants.4815-, 4815A, 4815B|Index No. 850098/17|Case Nos. 2024-05483, 2024-06166, 2024-06167|Entered: October 2, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsPatsy J. Morton, appellant pro se.Friedman Vartolo LLP, Garden City (Stephen J. Vargasof counsel), for respondent.Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Friedman, Pitt–Burke,Rosado, Chan, JJ.Opinion*1 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (FrancisA. Kahn III, J.), entered on or about October 4,2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limitedby the briefs, denied defendant Patsy J. Morton's(defendant) motion to vacate the foreclosure sale,unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal fromorder, same court and Justice, entered August 1,2024, which granted plaintiff's motion for an extensionof time to conduct a foreclosure sale, unanimouslydismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal fromorder, same court and Justice, entered on or aboutSeptember 19, 2024, which, to the extent appealable,denied defendant's motion for leave to renew heropposition to plaintiff's motion for an extension oftime, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.Defendant's appeal from the August 1, 2024 orderratifying the judicial sale that occurred on May 24,2023 is moot. Title was ultimately transferred onAugust 14, 2024, and the appeal from that order doesnot seek restitution (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.Stranahan, 208 A.D.3d 1489, 1491, 174 N.Y.S.3d 178[3d Dept. 2022]; see also Globe Trade Capital, LLCv. Hoey, 199 A.D.3d 764, 766, 158 N.Y.S.3d 132[2d Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1164, 174N.Y.S.3d 356, 195 N.E.3d 63 [2022]).Defendant's appeal from the order denying hermotion to renew is also moot. In any event, thepurported new facts would not have changed thecourt's determination, nor did she give a reasonablejustification for previously omitting them (see CPLR2221[e][2], [3]).Defendant's various arguments concerning thepropriety of the judgment of foreclosure and saleand the interlocutory orders preceding it, includingwhether the motion court properly considered variousassignments of mortgage, whether plaintiff hadstanding, whether certain mortgages were invalid, theapplicability of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act,and various purported irregularities associated withthe court's consideration of these papers, go to thepropriety of the judgment. This Court may not reviewthose matters, as the judgment of foreclosure andsale entered February 15, 2022 was final as to them(see Dulberg v. Ebenhart, 68 A.D.2d 323, 327, 417N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 1979]), the judgment is notcurrently being appealed, and none of those mattersconcern the foreclosure sale proceedings.This Court declines to sanction defendant for citingfour nonexistent cases. Although such citations shouldgenerally warrant sanctions, and a party's pro se statusshould not render the party immune, in this instancethe Court is mindful to afford leniency to the pro sedefendant (see Dowlah v. Professional Staff Congress[PSC–CUNY], 227 A.D.3d 609, 610, 213 N.Y.S.3d 13[1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 911, 2025 WL84301 [2025]).We have considered defendant's remaining contentionsand find them unavailing.All Citations--- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2025 WL 2798094 (Mem), 2025 N.Y.Slip Op. 05305
NewRez LLC v. Morton, --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2025)2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05305 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access