Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Marous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Marous

127 A.D.3d 1012, 5 N.Y.S.3d 883

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

DecidedApril 22, 2015

Docket2013-09679

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1012 (Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Marous) 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 Trust Co. Americas v. Marous, 127 A.D.3d 1012, 5 N.Y.S.3d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Gabriel Marous appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated June 27, 2013, which denied his motion, made jointly with the defendant Justine Marous, in effect, to vacate their default in answering and to extend their time to serve an answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant who has failed to timely answer a complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a] [1]; Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d 995 [2014]; Vigo v 501 Second St. Holding Corp., 100 AD3d 871 [2012]; Integon Natl. Ins. Co. v Noterile, 88 AD3d 654, 655 [2011]; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 890).

Here, the defendants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in seeking to answer the complaint (see *1013 Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995). As such, it is unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Cervini v Cisco Gen. Constr., Inc., 123 AD3d 1077 [2014]; Cavalry SPV I, LLC v Frenkel, 119 AD3d 724, 725 [2014]; Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995-996). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion, made jointly with the defendant Justine Marous, in effect, to vacate their default in answering and to extend their time to serve an answer.

To the extent that the appellant’s brief purports also to be submitted on behalf of the defendant Justine Marous, we note that Justine Marous is not an appellant, as no notice of appeal was filed on her behalf.

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Sgroi and Barros, 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 Gabriel Marous appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated June 27, 2013, which denied his motion, made jointly with the defendant Justine Marous, in effect, to vacate their default in answering and to extend their time to serve an answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant who has failed to timely answer a complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a] [1]; Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d 995 [2014]; Vigo v 501 Second St. Holding Corp., 100 AD3d 871 [2012]; Integon Natl. Ins. Co. v Noterile, 88 AD3d 654, 655 [2011]; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 890).

Here, the defendants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in seeking to answer the complaint (see *1013 Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995). As such, it is unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Cervini v Cisco Gen. Constr., Inc., 123 AD3d 1077 [2014]; Cavalry SPV I, LLC v Frenkel, 119 AD3d 724, 725 [2014]; Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995-996). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion, made jointly with the defendant Justine Marous, in effect, to vacate their default in answering and to extend their time to serve an answer.

To the extent that the appellant’s brief purports also to be submitted on behalf of the defendant Justine Marous, we note that Justine Marous is not an appellant, as no notice of appeal was filed on her behalf.

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 1012, 5 N.Y.S.3d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-trust-co-americas-v-marous-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack