U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bukobza
Decision Date | 21 September 2016 |
Citation | 142 A.D.3d 1070,39 N.Y.S.3d 171,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06075 |
Parties | U.S. BANK, N.A., etc., appellant, v. Ziv BUKOBZA, et al., defendants, Spec–U VII, Inc., respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Houser & Allison, P.C., New York, NY (Danielle P. Light and Jacqueline Muratore of counsel), for appellant.
Raphael S. Berlin (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, NY, of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to an unrecorded mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated April 6, 2015, which granted the motion of the defendant Spec–U VII, Inc., in effect, to vacate a prior order of the same court (Partnow, J.), dated October 23, 2014, authorizing the entry of judgment against the defendant Spec–U VII, Inc., based on its default in answering, to permit Spec–U VII, Inc., to serve a late answer, and to cancel a notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff with regard to the subject real property.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting those branches of the motion of the defendant Spec–U VII, Inc. (hereinafter Spec–U), which were, in effect, to vacate its default and for leave to serve a late answer. In moving to vacate its default, Spec–U was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Shin v. ITCI, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 736, 737, 981 N.Y.S.2d 603 ; People's United Bank v. Latini Tuxedo Mgt., LLC, 95 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 944 N.Y.S.2d 909 ). Spec–U established a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely answer the complaint by providing a detailed and credible explanation of the law office failure which led to its default (see CPLR 2005 ; Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Makkas, 127 A.D.3d 907, 7 N.Y.S.3d 379 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Ahmed, 122 A.D.3d 557, 996 N.Y.S.2d 92 ; Needleman v. Tornheim, 106 A.D.3d 707, 964 N.Y.S.2d 231 ). Moreover, Spec–U demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action under New York's Recording Act (see Real Property Law § 291 ; see generally Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Swenton, 133 A.D.3d 846, 20 N.Y.S.3d 405 ; Transland Assets, Inc. v. Davis, 29 A.D.3d 679, 813 N.Y.S.2d 675 )...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clean Earth of N. Jersey, Inc. v. Northcoast Maint. Corp.
... ... HSBC Bank USA, 87 A.D.3d 995, 997, 929 N.Y.S.2d 259 ). Amendments are presumed to ... ...
-
Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Damaro
...providing a detailed and credible explanation of the law office failure which led to her default (see CPLR 2005 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bukobza, 142 A.D.3d 1070, 39 N.Y.S.3d 171 ). Moreover, she demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the motion, inter alia, based upon the plaintiff'......
-
Ferreira v. Singh, 2018–01576
...the matter to the motion calendar (cf. Arroyo v. Starrett City, Inc., 170 A.D.3d at 930–931, 96 N.Y.S.3d 362 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bukobza, 142 A.D.3d 1070, 39 N.Y.S.3d 171 ).Accordingly, we reverse the order entered December 11, 2017, insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to the Sup......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Faragalla
...inter alia, for summary judgment (see Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Damaro, 145 A.D.3d at 859–860, 44 N.Y.S.3d 128 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bukobza, 142 A.D.3d 1070, 1071, 39 N.Y.S.3d 171 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Segui, 120 A.D.3d 1369, 1373–1374, 993 N.Y.S.2d 330 ; see also CPLR 2005 ; Bayview Loan Servicing......