Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Rudman
| Decision Date | 18 January 2011 |
| Citation | 914 N.Y.S.2d 672,80 A.D.3d 651 |
| Parties | DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., respondent, v. Mannes RUDMAN, et al., appellants, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sanford Solny, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.
Fein, Such & Crane, LLP , for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Mannes Rudman and Lotty Rudman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated July 8, 2009, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale against them upon their failure to answer and denied their cross motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in answering and extend their time to answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the appellants did not answer the complaint until more than eight weeks after their time to do so expired and, even after their untimely answer was immediately rejected, they took no action to remedy their default until many months later. A defendant who seeks to extend the time to appear or to compel acceptance of an untimely answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and show a potentially meritorious defense ( see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 889, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403). Here, the appellants failed to offer any excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint ( id.; see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Teel, 74 A.D.3d 1275, 1276, 903 N.Y.S.2d 250). Since the appellants failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d at 889, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' cross motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in answering and extend their time to answer, andproperly granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale against the appellants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Country Pointe at Dix Hills Home Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Beechwood Org.
... ... lacks standing ( see CPLR 3211[a][3], 3211[e]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Jackson, 68 A.D.3d 805, 805, 889 ... ...
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Genova
...955 N.Y.S.2d 654 ; Arias v. First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 A.D.3d 940, 941, 957 N.Y.S.2d 121 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudman, 80 A.D.3d 651, 652, 914 N.Y.S.2d 672 ; see also HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Powell, 148 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 51 N.Y.S.3d 116 ; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v.......
-
Midfirst Bank v. Al-Rahman
...answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and show a potentially meritorious defense ( see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudman, 80 A.D.3d 651, 914 N.Y.S.2d 672; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 889, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403). Here, the appellants failed to demon......
-
Bitzios v. Michelakis
...not address whether the defendants established the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudman, 80 A.D.3d 651, 652, 914 N.Y.S.2d 672). The Supreme Court, however, should not have assessed damages without conducting an inquest ( cf. Paulson v.......