Wilmington Trust, Nat'l Ass'n v. Ashe
| Citation | 189 A.D.3d 1130,138 N.Y.S.3d 515 |
| Decision Date | 09 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 607213/17,2018–11319 |
| Parties | WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., respondent, v. Carmen ASHE, appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Kupillas Unger & Benjamin, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey Benjamin of counsel), for appellant.
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Chong S. Lim of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, HECTOR D. LASALLE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Carmen Ashe appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James Hudson, J.), dated August 6, 2018. The order denied the motion of the defendant Carmen Ashe pursuant to CPLR 3012 to compel the plaintiff to accept her late answer, and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for an order of reference.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On April 18, 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage against the defendant Carmen Ashe (hereinafter the defendant), among others. The defendant's time to answer the complaint expired on June 8, 2017. The defendant attempted to serve her answer on June 20, 2017, but the plaintiff rejected it.
By notice of motion dated August 24, 2017, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3012 to compel the plaintiff to accept her late answer. In support of her motion, the plaintiff submitted the affirmation of her attorney, who stated that the defendant was pro se at the time she attempted to serve her answer, and argued that the Supreme Court should overlook the de minimis delay. The defendant did not submit her own affidavit, and her attorney offered no explanation for the defendant's 12–day delay in serving her answer.
The plaintiff cross-moved for an order of reference. In support of its cross motion, plaintiff submitted the note, the mortgage, and the affidavit of a document execution specialist for the plaintiff's loan servicer, who stated that the loan "is in default and is due for the May 1, 2011 payment and all subsequent payments." The plaintiff also opposed the defendant's motion to compel acceptance of her late answer by arguing that defendant had failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her default.
In an order dated August 6, 2018, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross motion The defendant appeals.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendant's motion to compel acceptance of her late answer. "To extend the time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action" ( Mannino Dev., Inc. v. Linares, 117 A.D.3d 995, 995, 986 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; see CPLR 3012[d] ). "A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the court" ( Vujanic v. Petrovic, 103 A.D.3d 791, 792, 961 N.Y.S.2d 210 ). Where the defendant fails to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default, the court need not consider whether a potentially meritorious defense was offered (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Adago, 155 A.D.3d 594, 596, 63 N.Y.S.3d 495 ).
Here, the defendant offered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Hershkowitz
...Babik's affidavit did not refer at all to RPAPL 1304, but stated only that attached as Exhibit "C" to her affidavit was "the Notice 189 A.D.3d 1130 of Default and Demand that was sent to the mortgagor(s) pursuant to the terms and conditions of the subject mortgage," which was "sent to the m......
-
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Pickering-Robinson
...Mortgage, as it is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see 153 N.Y.S.3d 185 Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Hershkowitz, 189 A.D.3d at 1130, 138 N.Y.S.3d 54 ). As to the defendant's denial of receipt of the notice, "[a] mere denial of receipt of an RPAPL 1304 notice ... is in......
-
Garcia v. Best Prof'l Home Care Agency, Inc.
...... 674 [2d Dept 2015]; see also U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Catalano, 215 A.D.3d 992, 993-994 [2d Dept ... 2011]; see also Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Ashe, 189. A.D.3d 1130, 1131-1132 [2d Dept ......
-
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Pierce
...in this action, as the defendant failed to vacate her default in appearing or answering the complaint (see Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Ashe, 189 A.D.3d 1130, 1132, 138 N.Y.S.3d 515 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cid, 178 A.D.3d 875, 876, 111 N.Y.S.3d 548 ; PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Celestin, 130 A.D.3d 703, 70......