Anna Pezhman v. Chanel, et al.

When dealing with a motion to set aside a judgment based on fraud, misconduct and misrepresentation, must a court proffer reasons for its denial or can a court deny in a vacuum and still ensure that the demands of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment have been met? Does the Balancing of Equities' Test, the New York Court of Appeals erected vis-à-vis the statute CPLR 5015, ensure that the requisites of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment have been met? Can extrinsic or intrinsic fraud provide a basis to re-open a judgment? Does legal pertinence encompass concocting false allegations of racial and religious harassment at opportune moments to win summary judgment motions and does it encompass perjuring oneself upon direct examination by a judge on issues central to the Complaint?