BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Bertram

Decision Date17 April 2019
Docket Number2016–08213,2016–08215,Index No. 14436/11
Citation98 N.Y.S.3d 311,171 A.D.3d 994
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Parties BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., etc., Respondent, v. Robin D. BERTRAM, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

171 A.D.3d 994
98 N.Y.S.3d 311

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., etc., Respondent,
v.
Robin D. BERTRAM, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

2016–08213
2016–08215
Index No. 14436/11

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

Submitted - January 14, 2019
April 17, 2019


Vivia L. Joseph Law Group P.C., Cambria Heights, N.Y. (David B. Calender of counsel), for appellant.

Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Christopher P. Kohn and Ruth O'Connor of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

98 N.Y.S.3d 312

DECISION & ORDER

171 A.D.3d 994

ORDERED that the first order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Robin D. Bertram and for an order of reference are denied, that branch of the motion of the defendant Robin D. Bertram which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as abandoned is granted, that branch of the motion of the defendant Robin D. Bertram which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied as academic, and so much of the second order as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Robin D. Bertram and referred the matter to a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage loan is vacated; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the second order is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the first order; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.

In April 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants Robin D. Bertram (hereinafter Robin) and

171 A.D.3d 995

Claudette Bertram (hereinafter together the defendants), among others, to foreclose a mortgage on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jackson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 10, 2022
    ...action" ( Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Hiyo, 130 A.D.3d at 764, 13 N.Y.S.3d 554 ; see BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Bertram, 171 A.D.3d 994, 995, 98 N.Y.S.3d 311 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hasis, 154 A.D.3d 832, 833–834, 62 N.Y.S.3d 467 ). "Although the determination of what constitutes a r......
  • Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. v. Lee
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 16, 2022
    ...after the defendant's default (see Flushing Bank v. Sabi, 182 A.D.3d 582, 584, 123 N.Y.S.3d 139 ; BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Bertram, 171 A.D.3d 994, 995–996, 98 N.Y.S.3d 311 ). Even after the matter was released from the foreclosure settlement part on March 14, 2016, the plaintiff t......
  • HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. MacPherson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 23, 2022
    ...and to a FEMA hold regarding Hurricane Sandy, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for its default (see BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Bertram, 171 A.D.3d 994, 995, 98 N.Y.S.3d 311 ; Kondrotas–Williams v. Westbridge Enters., Inc., 170 A.D.3d 983, 985, 97 N.Y.S.3d 127 ; Wells Fargo Bank,......
  • Wells Fargo Bank v. Aucapina
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 28, 2021
    ...excuse, we need not consider whether it demonstrated a potentially meritorious action (see BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Bertram, 171 A.D.3d 994, 995–996, 98 N.Y.S.3d 311 ).For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion should have been denied in its entirety.The parties’ remaining c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT