68 A.D.3d 1103 | N.Y. App. Div. | 2009
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, in effect, excluding Edelman’s personal residence from execution and sale in satisfaction of the judgment by confession prior to the final determination of the defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment (see CPLR 5015; DaSilva v Musso, 76 NY2d 436 [1990]; cf. Marcus Dairy v Jacene Realty Corp., 298 AD2d 366 [2002]).
The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.E, Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.