U.S. Bank N.A. v. CrawfordU.S. Bank N.A. v. Crawford
Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY (Allison J. Schoenthal, Christian Fletcher, and Leah Edmunds of counsel), for appellant.
Lee M. Nigen, Lake Success, NY, for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), dated June 14, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of the defendant Reyon Crawford, in effect, pursuant to
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Reyon Crawford is denied.
On October 28, 2005, Reyon Crawford and Donovan Thompson obtained a loan in the amount of $496,000, secured by a note and mortgage on certain real property. Crawford and Thompson allegedly defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage by failing to make the payments due on May 1, 2008,
Subsequently, in a sua sponte order dated September 19, 2013, the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint as abandoned, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to proceed to entry of judgment within one year of default. The plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the September 19, 2013, order of dismissal, and the motion was granted by order dated May 16, 2016. The May 16, 2016, order was subsequently served on Crawford at the subject property address.
In February 2017, the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Appearing for the first time in this action, Crawford opposed the plaintiff‘s motion, and moved, in effect, pursuant to
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering a complaint pursuant to
Here, Crawford does not dispute that he was properly served with the complaint in 2008, but failed to answer. He offers no reasonable excuse for this default. The fact that Crawford was not represented by an attorney until the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale does not establish a reasonable excuse for default (see Miller v Ateres Shlomo, LLC, 49 AD3d 612), even if Crawford, as a pro se defendant, was unaware of his obligation to serve an answer (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Ahmed, 137 AD3d 1106). Neither law office failure (see LaSalle Bank N.A. v Calle, 153 AD3d 801), nor a pro se defendant‘s lack of understanding about the legal process is sufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Besemer, 131 AD3d 1047). Until the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, Crawford ignored every legal notice served upon him relating to this action, which demonstrates a pattern of willful default and neglect (see Wexler v Kinder Stuff 2010, LLC, 151 AD3d 909).
As Crawford
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court