Opinion
08-23-2017
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., respondent, v. Jaspal SINGH, appellant, et al., defendants.
Rubin & Licatesi, P.C., Garden City, NY (Richard H. Rubin and Amy J. Zamir of counsel), for appellant. Gross Polowy, LLC, Westbury, NY (Stephen J. Vargas of counsel), for respondent.
Rubin & Licatesi, P.C., Garden City, NY (Richard H. Rubin and Amy J. Zamir of counsel), for appellant.
Gross Polowy, LLC, Westbury, NY (Stephen J. Vargas of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (David Elliot, J.), entered January 13, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Jaspal Singh which was to vacate his default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"To extend the time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action" ( Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Kuldip, 136 A.D.3d 969, 969, 25 N.Y.S.3d 653 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Lafazan, 115 A.D.3d 647, 648, 983 N.Y.S.2d 32 ). "The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" ( Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 889, 890, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; see Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 903, 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357 ; Antoine v. Bee, 26 A.D.3d 306, 306, 812 N.Y.S.2d 557 ). Here, contrary to the contention of the defendant Jaspal Singh (hereinafter the defendant), his appearance and participation in a settlement conference nearly two years after the action was commenced, and his alleged reliance upon statements by the loan servicer, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his delay in answering the complaint (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Louis, 148 A.D.3d 758, 759, 48 N.Y.S.3d 458 ; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Comfort Boampong, 145 A.D.3d 981, 982, 44 N.Y.S.3d 189 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Samuel, 138 A.D.3d 1105, 1106, 30 N.Y.S.3d 305 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Rotimi, 121 A.D.3d 855, 855, 995 N.Y.S.2d 81 ; Mannino Dev., Inc. v. Linares, 117 A.D.3d 995, 995–996, 986 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his delay in answering, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v. Linares, 117 A.D.3d at 996, 986 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Lafazan, 115 A.D.3d at 648, 983 N.Y.S.2d 32 ).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to vacate his default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.