Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles

95 A.D.3d 1049, 943 N.Y.S.2d 904
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 2012·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Hiram [1050] Charles appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered September 10, 2010, as denied his motion, inter alia, in effect, to vacate his default in appearing or answering, and pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Hiram Charles, in effect, to vacate his default in appearing or answering, and pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer, since he failed to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Intervest Natl. Bank v Ashburton 70, LLC, 87 AD3d 617 [2011]; Moriano v Provident N.Y. Bancorp, 71 AD3d 747 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles, 95 A.D.3d 1049, 943 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

95 A.D.3d 1049 (Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First Republic Bank v. Salander
131 A.D.3d 668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)