Bank of New York v. Krausz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of New York v. Krausz

2016 NY Slip Op 7283, 144 A.D.3d 718, 41 N.Y.S.3d 84

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 9, 2016

Docket2015-01081

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7283 (Bank of New York v. Krausz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of New York v. Krausz, 2016 NY Slip Op 7283, 144 A.D.3d 718, 41 N.Y.S.3d 84 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Leah Krausz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated November 20, 2014, which denied, without a hearing, her motion, in effect, to vacate her default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on certain residential property. The appellant allegedly was personally served with process in May 2008, pursuant to CPLR 308 (1), and failed to appear or answer the complaint. In December 2013, the appellant moved, in effect, to vacate her default in appearing or answering the complaint.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion, in effect, to vacate her default. To the extent that the appellant moved to vacate her default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) for lack of personal jurisdiction due to failure to serve process, her bare and unsubstantiated denial of service was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the duly executed affidavit of service of the plaintiff’s process server, or even to require a hearing (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pietranico, 102 AD3d 724 [2013]; Reich v Redley, 96 AD3d 1038 [2012]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dixon, 93 AD3d 630 [2012]; US Natl. Bank Assn. v Melton, 90 AD3d 742, 743 [2011]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Phillips, 82 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2011]).

Moreover, insofar as the appellant also sought to vacate her default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) by demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Luden, 91 AD3d 701 [2012]), the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default, since the only excuse proffered was that she was not served with process (see Reich v Redley, 96 AD3d at 1038; Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v Gritsipis, 87 AD3d 216, 221 [2011]; Tadco Constr. Corp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 73 AD3d 1022, *719 1023 [2010]). Since the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d at 740; Reich v Redley, 96 AD3d at 1038).

In view of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Leah Krausz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated November 20, 2014, which denied, without a hearing, her motion, in effect, to vacate her default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on certain residential property. The appellant allegedly was personally served with process in May 2008, pursuant to CPLR 308 (1), and failed to appear or answer the complaint. In December 2013, the appellant moved, in effect, to vacate her default in appearing or answering the complaint.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion, in effect, to vacate her default. To the extent that the appellant moved to vacate her default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) for lack of personal jurisdiction due to failure to serve process, her bare and unsubstantiated denial of service was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the duly executed affidavit of service of the plaintiff’s process server, or even to require a hearing (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pietranico, 102 AD3d 724 [2013]; Reich v Redley, 96 AD3d 1038 [2012]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dixon, 93 AD3d 630 [2012]; US Natl. Bank Assn. v Melton, 90 AD3d 742, 743 [2011]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Phillips, 82 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2011]).

Moreover, insofar as the appellant also sought to vacate her default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) by demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Luden, 91 AD3d 701 [2012]), the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default, since the only excuse proffered was that she was not served with process (see Reich v Redley, 96 AD3d at 1038; Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v Gritsipis, 87 AD3d 216, 221 [2011]; Tadco Constr. Corp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 73 AD3d 1022, *719 1023 [2010]). Since the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d at 740; Reich v Redley, 96 AD3d at 1038).

In view of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7283, 144 A.D.3d 718, 41 N.Y.S.3d 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-krausz-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack