Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Minott

• Decision Date: 05 March 2014
• Citation: 115 A.D.3d 634,981 N.Y.S.2d 757,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01427
• Parties: CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, appellant, v. Karon A. MINOTT, respondent, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

115 A.D.3d 634
981 N.Y.S.2d 757
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01427

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, appellant,
v.
Karon A. MINOTT, respondent, et al., defendants.

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

March 5, 2014.

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Owen M. Robinson of counsel), for appellant.

Karon A. Minott, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated September 6, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendant Karon A. Minott for leave to interpose a late answer and, in effect, to vacate her default in appearing or answering.

[981 N.Y.S.2d 758]

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion for leave to interpose a late answer and, in effect, to vacate the respondent's default in appearing or answering is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action in December 2007 against Karon A. Minott, among others. Minott does not dispute that she was served with process and received the summons and complaint in late 2007 or early 2008. The plaintiff also served Minott with an order of reference in 2009. Nevertheless, Minott did not interpose an answer or otherwise appear in the action for more than four years after she was served with the summons and complaint. By order to show cause dated July 5, 2012, Minott moved for leave to interpose a late answer and, in effect, to vacate her default in appearing or answering. The Supreme Court granted the motion, concluding that Minott “ha [d] set forth a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense to the action.” 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 Community Preserv. Corp. v. Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 A.D.3d 784, 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).

Here, Minott's claims that she “did not know that [she] needed to submit an answer,” and that she relied on the advice of her real estate broker instead of consulting an attorney, do not constitute a reasonable...