On February 23, 2022, the Second Department issued a decision in Citimortgage, Inc. v. Roque, 2022 NY Slip Op. 01138, holding that a motion to vacate a judgment must be based on facts that were unavailable when the judgment was entered, explaining:
Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person, upon the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. An order may not be vacated on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct where the moving party had knowledge of the fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct before the order was issued. Moreover, where allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, such as those asserted here, were readily obtainable prior to the time the order was issued, the allegations constitute nothing more than newly interposed theories which could have been asserted prior to issuance of the order.
Here, the Supreme Court, in effect, providently denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), since the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant’s misrepresentations and/or failure to disclose the transfer of ownership of the property, in the papers in support of her motion, was indicative of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct sufficient to warrant vacatur of the May 25, 2016 order. In that regard, the plaintiff failed to establish that, at the time of the defendant’s motion, it did not have knowledge of the transfer of ownership and/or that such knowledge was not readily available.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added).