Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Ajim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Ajim

43 A.D.3d 811, 840 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedSeptember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 811 (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Ajim) 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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Ajim, 43 A.D.3d 811, 840 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falmieri, J.), dated July 25, 2006, which denied her motion, in effect, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure entered March 8, 2005, upon her default, and to set aside the sale of the property pursuant to the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion because she failed to present a reasonable excuse for her default in answering or appearing (see Sime v Ludhar, 37 AD3d 817 [2007]; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 671-672 [2006]; NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Avila, 29 AD3d 965 [2006]; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d 678, 679 [2006]; NYCTL-1 Trust v Liberty Bay Realty Corp., 21 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2005]). Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falmieri, J.), dated July 25, 2006, which denied her motion, in effect, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure entered March 8, 2005, upon her default, and to set aside the sale of the property pursuant to the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion because she failed to present a reasonable excuse for her default in answering or appearing (see Sime v Ludhar, 37 AD3d 817 [2007]; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 671-672 [2006]; NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Avila, 29 AD3d 965 [2006]; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d 678, 679 [2006]; NYCTL-1 Trust v Liberty Bay Realty Corp., 21 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2005]). Mastro, J.E, Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 811, 840 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-v-ajim-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack