Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini

• Decision Date: 03 May 2011
• Citation: 921 N.Y.S.2d 643,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03837,84 A.D.3d 789
• Parties: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., respondent, v. Riccardo CERVINI, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

84 A.D.3d 789

921 N.Y.S.2d 643

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., respondent,

v.Riccardo CERVINI, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

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

May 3, 2011.

Stephen A. Katz, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellants.

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Andrew Morganstern of counsel), for respondent.

JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON L., and PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Riccardo Cervini and Angela M. Cervini appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated January 13, 2010, which granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm the referee's report and for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale against them upon their default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action, and denied their cross motion, in effect, to vacate their default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action, and for leave to serve a late answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant who has failed to appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action to avoid the entering of a default judgment or to extend the time to answer ( see Equicredit Corp. of Am. v. Campbell, 73 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 900 N.Y.S.2d 907;Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 889, 890, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403;Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, 4 A.D.3d 462, 462, 771 N.Y.S.2d 686;Khanna v. Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 A.D.2d 508, 509, 720 N.Y.S.2d 349). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” ( Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d at 890, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403;see Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 903, 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357;Antoine v. Bee, 26 A.D.3d 306, 306, 812 N.Y.S.2d 557). In exercising its discretion in this regard, the Supreme Court “may accept law office failure as an excuse” ( Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d at 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357;seeCPLR 2005; Papandrea v. Acevedo, 54 A.D.3d 915, 916, 864 N.Y.S.2d 138;Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 511, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384;Chiarello v. Alessandro, 38 A.D.3d 823, 824, 832 N.Y.S.2d 634). “However, law office failure should not be excused ... where allegations of law office failure are conclusory and unsubstantiated” ( Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d at 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357;see Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d 783, 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209;Wechsler v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 295 A.D.2d 340, 341, 742 N.Y.S.2d 668).

Here, the defendants Riccardo Cervini and Angela M. Cervini (hereinafter together the defendants) failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action. Their claim of law office failure is conclusory and unsubstantiated and, under the circumstances presented here, does not constitute a reasonable excuse for their default ( see Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d at 905, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357;Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d at 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209;White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 651–652, 843...