From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brooklyn Heritage, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 13, 2016
138 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

04-13-2016

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, respondent, v. BROOKLYN HERITAGE, LLC, appellant, et al., defendants.

Kenneth R. Berman, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant. Mark L. Cortegiano, Middle Village, N.Y., for respondent.


Kenneth R. Berman, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.

Mark L. Cortegiano, Middle Village, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Brooklyn Heritage, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated June 6, 2014, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Brooklyn Heritage, LLC (hereinafter BH), appeals from an order denying its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint as abandoned insofar as asserted against it.

The failure to timely seek a default on an unanswered complaint or counterclaim may be excused if "sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed" (CPLR 3215[c] ). This Court has interpreted this language as requiring both a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment, plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious (see LNV Corp. v. Forbes, 122 A.D.3d 805, 806, 996 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; Giglio v. NTIMP, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 301, 308, 926 N.Y.S.2d 546 ). The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable in any given instance is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court (see Giglio v. NTIMP, Inc., 86 A.D.3d at 308, 926 N.Y.S.2d 546 ). Here, the plaintiff showed a reasonable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious cause of action. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying BH's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see LNV Corp. v. Forbes, 122 A.D.3d at 806–807, 996 N.Y.S.2d 696 ).

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, LEVENTHAL and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brooklyn Heritage, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 13, 2016
138 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brooklyn Heritage, LLC

Case Details

Full title:MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, respondent, v. BROOKLYN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 13, 2016

Citations

138 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
138 A.D.3d 793
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2783

Citing Cases

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Izmirligil

The failure to timely seek a default on an unanswered complaint or counterclaim may be excused if…

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. D.A.T.A. Mgmt. Grp. Inc.

Where the evidence shows merit to plaintiff's claim, lack of intent to abandon the claim and sufficient cause…