Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Teel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Teel

74 A.D.3d 1275, 903 N.Y.S.2d 250

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

DecidedJune 29, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1275 (Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Teel) 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

Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Teel, 74 A.D.3d 1275, 903 N.Y.S.2d 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant [1276]*1276Reginald Teel, as administrator of the estate of Flossie Teel, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), entered August 27, 2009, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to appoint a referee to compute the amount due and owing to it, and denied his cross motion, in effect, to vacate his default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action, and for leave to interpose an answer.

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

The appellant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to answer or appear in the action and did not set forth the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to foreclosure (see NYCTL 2005-A Trust v 2137-2153 Nostrand Ave. Assoc., L.P., 69 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his cross motion, in effect, to vacate his default and for leave to interpose an answer, and properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to appoint a referee to compute the amount due and owing to it (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; 393 Lefferts Partners, LLC v New York Ave. at Lefferts, LLC, 68 AD3d 976 [2009]; Bank of N.Y. v Segui, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v Murphy, 2 AD3d 559 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant [1276]*1276Reginald Teel, as administrator of the estate of Flossie Teel, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), entered August 27, 2009, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to appoint a referee to compute the amount due and owing to it, and denied his cross motion, in effect, to vacate his default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action, and for leave to interpose an answer.

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

The appellant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to answer or appear in the action and did not set forth the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to foreclosure (see NYCTL 2005-A Trust v 2137-2153 Nostrand Ave. Assoc., L.P., 69 AD3d 697, 698 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his cross motion, in effect, to vacate his default and for leave to interpose an answer, and properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to appoint a referee to compute the amount due and owing to it (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; 393 Lefferts Partners, LLC v New York Ave. at Lefferts, LLC, 68 AD3d 976 [2009]; Bank of N.Y. v Segui, 42 AD3d 555 [2007]; Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v Murphy, 2 AD3d 559 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1275, 903 N.Y.S.2d 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emigrant-mortgage-co-v-teel-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack