Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Conway

Oct 10, 2012
Versions:99 A.D.3d 755
951 N.Y.S.2d 892
951 N.Y.2d 892

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Purcell Conway (hereinafter the appellant) which was, in effect, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered January 18, 2008, upon his default in answering or appearing. A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; US Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]; Fremont Inv. & Loan v Bertram, 90 AD3d 988, 988 [2011]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown, 83 AD3d 644, 645 [2011]).

Here, the appellant failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing or answering the complaint (see Fremont Inv. & Loan v Bertram, 90 AD3d at 988). Since the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not consider whether he proffered a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]; Fremont Inv. & Loan v Bertram, 90 AD3d at 988).

The appellant‘s remaining contentions need not be reached in light of the foregoing determination. Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.