TCIF REO GCM, LLC v. Walker
| Decision Date | 04 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2015-02360, Index No. 38887/06. |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03491,139 A.D.3d 704,32 N.Y.S.3d 223 |
| Parties | TCIF REO GCM, LLC, plaintiff, v. Richard WALKER, respondent, et al., defendants; Random Properties Acquisition Corp. III, nonparty-appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
139 A.D.3d 704
32 N.Y.S.3d 223
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03491
TCIF REO GCM, LLC, plaintiff,
v.
Richard WALKER, respondent, et al., defendants;
Random Properties Acquisition Corp. III, nonparty-appellant.
2015-02360, Index No. 38887/06.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 4, 2016.
Knuckles, Komosinski & Elliott LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (Michel Lee of counsel), for nonparty-appellant.
Law Office of Yuriy Moshes, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Rebecca Carmen of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the nonparty Random Properties Acquisition Corp. III appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Edwards, J.), dated September 29, 2014, as denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, for an order of reference, and to amend the caption to substitute itself as the plaintiff and Shelly Buchanan and Jonathan Strong as defendants instead of the defendants sued as “Jane Doe” and “John Doe,” and granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Richard Walker which was pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to extend his time to answer the complaint and to compel acceptance of service of the answer.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from,
on the law, with costs, the motion of the nonparty Random Properties Acquisition Corp. III for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, for an order of reference, and to amend the caption to substitute itself as the plaintiff and Shelly Buchanan and Jonathan Strong as defendants instead of the defendants sued as “Jane Doe” and “John Doe” is granted, and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Richard Walker which was pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to extend his time to answer the complaint and to compel acceptance of service of the answer is denied.
In this mortgage foreclosure action, the nonparty Random Properties Acquisition Corp. III (hereinafter RPAC) moved for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants upon their failure to answer the complaint, for an order of reference, and to amend the caption to substitute itself as the plaintiff and Shelly Buchanan and Jonathan Strong...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cumanet, LLC v. Murad
...174 A.D.3d at 492, 104 N.Y.S.3d 193 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Powell, 148 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 51 N.Y.S.3d 116 ; TCIF REO GCM, LLC v. Walker, 139 A.D.3d 704, 705, 32 N.Y.S.3d 223 ). To the extent that the defendants contend on appeal that they were not served with process (cf. CPLR 5015[a][4] ......
-
Clarke v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...for the delay in answering and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012[d] ; TCIF REO GCM, LLC v. Walker, 139 A.D.3d 704, 32 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Kuldip, 136 A.D.3d 969, 969, 25 N.Y.S.3d 653 ; Mannino Dev., Inc. v. Linares, 117 A.......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Tedesco, 2017–03798
...entitle him to serve a late answer (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Powell, 148 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 51 N.Y.S.3d 116 ; TCIF REO GCM, LLC v. Walker, 139 A.D.3d 704, 705, 32 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Lucero, 131 A.D.3d 496, 497, 14 N.Y.S.3d 707 ). Contrary to the defendant's contenti......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Louis
...Louis and an order of reference (see HSBC Bank USA v. Angeles, 143 A.D.3d 671, 672–673, 38 N.Y.S.3d 580 ; TCIF REO GCM, LLC v. Walker, 139 A.D.3d 704, 706, 32 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gulley, 137 A.D.3d 1008, 1009, 27 N.Y.S.3d 601 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Smith, 132 A.D.3d 848, 849–850, ......