Opinion
2014-02-26
TD BANK, N.A., etc., respondent, v. Joseph SPECTOR, also known as Joseph L. Spector, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Harvey Sorid, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellants. Cohn & Roth, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael J. Sweeney of counsel), for respondent.
Harvey Sorid, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellants. Cohn & Roth, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael J. Sweeney of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Joseph Spector, also known as Joseph L. Spector, and Marilyn Moriber–Spector, also known as Marilyn J. Moriber–Spector, also known as Marilyn Moriber, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered February 21, 2012, as denied those branches of their motion which were to vacate their default in appearing or answering the complaint and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based upon the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the notice provisions of the mortgage or to serve notice of their default as required by RPAPL 1304.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A defendant seeking to be relieved of his or her default in appearing or answering the complaint must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( seeCPLR 5015[a][1]; Sussman v. Jo–Sta Realty Corp., 99 A.D.3d 787, 951 N.Y.S.2d 683). Here, the appellants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear or answer the complaint ( see Gironda v. Katzen, 19 A.D.3d 644, 645, 798 N.Y.S.2d 109). Moreover, the appellants did not establish a reasonable excuse for their more than one-year delay in moving to vacate their default ( see Karalis v. New Dimensions HR, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 707, 708, 962 N.Y.S.2d 647;Arias v. First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 A.D.3d 940, 941, 957 N.Y.S.2d 121). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was to vacate their default.
In light of the appellants' failure to establish a reasonable excuse for their default, it is unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of potentially meritorious defenses to the action ( see Diederich v. Wetzel, 112 A.D.3d 883, 979 N.Y.S.2d 605;Arias v. First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 A.D.3d at 941, 957 N.Y.S.2d 121).
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit. SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.