Opinion
2012-04746, Index No. 1579/09.
09-16-2015
SDF8 CBK, LLC, respondent, v. 689 ST. MARKS AVENUE, INC., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Abraham Hoschander, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants. Kriss & Feuerstein LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jerold C. Feuerstein and Kristine L. Grinberg of counsel), for respondent.
Abraham Hoschander, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.
Kriss & Feuerstein LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jerold C. Feuerstein and Kristine L. Grinberg of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 689 St. Marks Avenue, Inc., and Frank Morris appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated November 29, 2011, as denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the default of the defendant 689 St. Marks Avenue, Inc.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering a complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 3012[d] ; CPLR 5015[a][1] ; Chase Home Fin., LLC v.
Minott, 115 A.D.3d 634, 981 N.Y.S.2d 757 ; Community Preserv. Corp. v. Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 A.D.3d 784, 785, 932 N.Y.S.2d 378 ; Taddeo–Amendola v. 970 Assets, LLC, 72 A.D.3d 677, 897 N.Y.S.2d 642 ; Perfect Care, Inc. v. Ultracare Supplies, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 752, 753, 895 N.Y.S.2d 748 ). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion” (Perfect Care, Inc. v. Ultracare Supplies, Inc., 71 A.D.3d at 753, 895 N.Y.S.2d 748 ; see Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 A.D.3d 393, 394, 780 N.Y.S.2d 764 ; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568, 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 66 ; Grutman v. Southgate At Bar Harbor Home Owners' Assn., 207 A.D.2d 526, 527, 616 N.Y.S.2d 68 ). We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default of the defendant 689 St. Marks Avenue Inc. (hereinafter SMA).
Since the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for SMA's default, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the subject motion which was to vacate the default, and this Court need not consider whether they proffered a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Blythe v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 123 A.D.3d 1073, 1074, 997 N.Y.S.2d 635 ; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Russo, 121 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 996 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; Selechnik v. Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach, 120 A.D.3d 1220, 991 N.Y.S.2d 894 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., HALL, COHEN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.