Putnam County National Bank of Carmel, Respondent, v. Richard Simpson, Also Known as Richard Simpson, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants

Putnam County National Bank of Carmel, Respondent, v Richard Simpson, Also Known as Richard Simpson, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. [614 NYS2d 149] [MAJORITY] —In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Richard Simpson and Annie Simpson appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated February 25, 1992, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court (Dickinson, J.), dated April 10, 1991. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. We agree with the appellants’ general contention that a court which renders a judgment possesses broad, inherent discretion to vacate it on such terms as are just (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; see, Ladd v Stevenson, 112 NY 325). However, in this case, even assuming that the appellants’ claims make out extrinsic fraud in the procurement of the default judgment of foreclosure which constituted a reasonable excuse for their default, and that they were not required to establish a meritorious defense (see, Shaw v Shaw, 97 AD2d 403), we nevertheless conclude that the appellants failed to establish any conduct by the plaintiff bank that prevented them from fully and fairly litigating this matter (see, Christ-Mitch Realty Corp. v Clarkson Realty Corp., 122 AD2d 245; cf., Sirota v Kloogman, 140 AD2d 426; see also, Barrett v Littles, 201 AD2d 444). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.