Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Castelli

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedNovember 26, 2018
Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51665(U)
StatusPublished

This text of Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Castelli (Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Castelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Castelli, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion



Chase Bank USA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Ralph Castelli, Defendant-Respondent.


Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on October 4, 2017, which granted defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on October 4, 2017, reversed, without costs, motion denied and default judgment reinstated.

No legal basis was shown by defendant or identified by the motion court for vacating the February 2008 default judgment. Despite a 2013 restraint on defendant's Citibank account and a February 2013 written agreement whereby defendant "acknowledge[d] the debt" and authorized "release of ... funds [in the Citibank account] towards the satisfaction of the ... debt," defendant took no action to challenge the default judgment until March 2017, a four-year delay which "evidenced a willingness to accede to the terms of the judgment" (Cooper v Carlson, 130 AD2d 703 [1987]). In any event, defendant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his substantial delay in moving to vacate the judgment (see Caba v Rai, 63 AD3d 578, 581-582 [2009]) and his conclusory claim that he does not owe "any money" was insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the underlying credit card debt (see Facsimile Communications Indus., Inc. v NYU Hosp. Ctr., 28 AD3d 391, 392 [2006]).

To the extent that defendant now raises a challenge to the court's personal jurisdiction over him, his conclusory denial that he was served in 2007 was insufficient to rebut the affidavit of service (see Matter of de Sanchez, 57 AD3d 452, 454 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 26, 2018

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

Related

Facsimile Communications Industries, Inc. v. NYU Hospital Center
28 A.D.3d 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re de Sanchez
57 A.D.3d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Caba v. Rai
63 A.D.3d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Cooper v. Carlson
130 A.D.2d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Castelli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-bank-usa-na-v-castelli-nyappterm-2018.