Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. PezzolaDeutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pezzola
John E. Lawler, Yonkers, NY, for appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Daniel Pezzola appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Anne E. Minihan, J.), dated April 20, 2016. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff‘s motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In April 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage, which secured a note and encumbered certain real property in Yonkers, against, among others, the defendant Daniel Pezzola (hereinafter the defendant). The defendant never appeared or answered the complaint. In December 2014, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant pursuant to
The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff‘s motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint and for an order of reference. “An applicant for a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant‘s failure to answer or appear” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Silverman, 178 AD3d 898, 899; see
“‘To defeat a facially adequate
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant‘s cross motion, as the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the absence of both an index number and the date of filing on the documents with which he had been served (see e.g. Nikolaidis v Makita Corp., 242 AD2d 322, 323; Cellular Tel. Co. v Village of Tarrytown, 209 AD2d 57, 64-65).
Since the defendant defaulted in appearing or answering the complaint and failed to seek to vacate the default or assert a reasonable excuse for defaulting, he is precluded from asserting, as defenses, the plaintiff‘s failure to comply with the requirements of
The defendant‘s remaining contention, raised for the first
LASALLE, P.J., RIVERA, DUFFY and FORD, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Acting Clerk of the Court