Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brooklyn Heritage, LLC

138 A.D.3d 793, 28 N.Y.S.3d 325
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 2016
Docket2014-07053
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 793 (Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brooklyn Heritage, LLC) 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
Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brooklyn Heritage, LLC, 138 A.D.3d 793, 28 N.Y.S.3d 325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Brooklyn Heritage, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated June 6, 2014, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Brooklyn Heritage, LLC (hereinafter BH), appeals from an order denying its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint as abandoned insofar as asserted against it.

The failure to timely seek a default on an unanswered complaint or counterclaim may be excused if “sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” (CPLR 3215 [c]). This Court has interpreted this language as requiring both a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment, plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious (see LNV Corp. v Forbes, 122 AD3d 805, 806 [2014]; Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d 301, 308 [2011]). The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable *794 in any given instance is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court (see Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d at 308). Here, the plaintiff showed a reasonable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious cause of action. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying BH’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see LNV Corp. v Forbes, 122 AD3d at 806-807).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

B. Riley Retail Solutions, LLC v. CA Global Partners Ltd.
2025 NY Slip Op 34406(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Machado v. Galdava
2024 NY Slip Op 51644(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
American Home Mtge. Acceptance, Inc. v. Lubonty
2020 NY Slip Op 06479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Seidner
2018 NY Slip Op 2202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Hasis
2017 NY Slip Op 7243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
NYCTL 2009-A Trust v. Kings Highway Realty Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bonanno
2017 NY Slip Op 211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Bank of New York Mellon v. Izmirligil
2016 NY Slip Op 8034 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Golden Eagle Capital Corp. v. Paramount Management Corp.
143 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Golden Eagle Capital Corp. v. Paramount Mgt. Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D.3d 793, 28 N.Y.S.3d 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maspeth-federal-savings-loan-assn-v-brooklyn-heritage-llc-nyappdiv-2016.