Opinion
01-25-2017
LaSALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., respondent, v. Michael R. OBERSTEIN, et al., defendants, Sperry Associates Federal Credit Union, appellant.
Scott A. Rosenberg, P.C., Garden City Park, N.Y. (Kenneth J. Pagliughi of counsel), for appellant. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Kenneth J. Flickinger of counsel), for respondent.
Scott A. Rosenberg, P.C., Garden City Park, N.Y. (Kenneth J. Pagliughi of counsel), for appellant.
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Kenneth J. Flickinger of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Sperry Associates Federal Credit Union appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered January 13, 2014, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated June 1, 2010, entered upon its failure to answer the complaint, and for leave to serve a late answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon its default in answering. Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant failed to move for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment (see Fishkin, Pugach & Finkelstein, P.C. v. Biggio, 128 A.D.3d 1006, 8 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Empire State Conglomerates v. Mahbur, 105 A.D.3d 898, 963 N.Y.S.2d 330 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d 765, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; Aames Capital Corp. v. Davidsohn, 24 A.D.3d 474, 808 N.Y.S.2d 229 ). In any event, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default, which is required when a CPLR 5015(a)(3) motion alleges intrinsic fraud, i.e., that the allegations in the complaint are false (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Karlis, 138 A.D.3d 915, 916, 30 N.Y.S.3d 228 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters, 127 A.D.3d 742, 742–743, 9 N.Y.S.3d 58 ; New Century Mtge. Corp. v. Corriette, 117 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 986 N.Y.S.2d 560 ), rather than "extrinsic fraud," which is "a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter" (Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d 403, 403, 467 N.Y.S.2d 231 ; see U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters, 127 A.D.3d at 742–743, 9 N.Y.S.3d 58 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Lagakos, 27 A.D.3d 678, 679, 810 N.Y.S.2d 923 ; Tamimi v. Tamimi, 38 A.D.2d 197, 328 N.Y.S.2d 477 ). Contrary to the appellant's contention, it failed to demonstrate some device, trick, or deceit that led it to believe that it need not defend the suit (see Empire State Conglomerates v. Mahbur, 105 A.D.3d 898, 963 N.Y.S.2d 330 ; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Schotter, 50 A.D.3d 983, 857 N.Y.S.2d 592 ; Putnam County Natl. Bank of Carmel v. Simpson, 204 A.D.2d 297, 614 N.Y.S.2d 149 ; cf. Avenoso v. Avenoso, 266 A.D.2d 326, 698 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d at 403, 467 N.Y.S.2d 231 ). Moreover, despite the appellant's allegations of improper practices by the plaintiff's agents in unrelated matters, it failed to meet its burden of establishing fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the plaintiff in this matter that could warrant vacatur of the default judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) (see Golden First Bank v. Tal, 136 A.D.3d 974, 25 N.Y.S.3d 638 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v.
Bustamante, 107 A.D.3d 752, 753, 968 N.Y.S.2d 513 ).
As the appellant failed to proffer an excuse for failing to answer the complaint, it is unnecessary to consider whether it sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see EMC Mtge. Corp. v. Toussaint, 136 A.D.3d 861, 862–863, 25 N.Y.S.3d 312 ).