NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. Levin

13 A.D.3d 595, 786 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15666

This text of 13 A.D.3d 595 (NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. Levin) 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
NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. Levin, 13 A.D.3d 595, 786 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendant Isaac Levin appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated May 23, 2003, which granted, without opposition, the plaintiffs motion to extend a notice of pendency filed with respect to the demised premises, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 2, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate the order dated May 23, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 23, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered on the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 2, 2003 is affirmed; and it is further,

[596]*596Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

A party seeking to obtain relief from an order entered on his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the motion (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Vlachos v Saueracker, 10 AD3d 683 [2004]; Juarbe v City of New York, 303 AD2d 462 [2003]). Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the motion, as the plaintiff had the right to file a successive notice of pendency in this tax lien foreclosure action (see NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v Oneg Shabbos, Inc., 5 AD3d 568 [2004]; see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Lifson, 5 AD3d 710 [2004]; Horowitz v Griggs, 2 AD3d 404, 406 [2003]; Campbell v Smith, 309 AD2d 581 [2003]; Wasserman v Harriman, 234 AD2d 596 [1996]; Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208, 212-213 [1989]). Accordingly, the motion to vacate the default was correctly denied. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Horowitz v. Griggs
2 A.D.3d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v. Oneg Shabbos, Inc.
5 A.D.3d 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Bankers Trust Co. of California, N.A. v. Lifson
5 A.D.3d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Vlachos v. Saueracker
10 A.D.3d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, Inc.
147 A.D.2d 208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Wasserman v. Harriman
234 A.D.2d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Juarbe v. City of New York
303 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Campbell v. Smith
309 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 595, 786 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyctl-1998-2-trust-v-levin-nyappdiv-2004.