U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Bien-Aime

123 A.D.3d 696, 999 N.Y.S.2d 423
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 3, 2014
Docket2013-01483
StatusPublished
Cited by112 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 696 (U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Bien-Aime) 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
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Bien-Aime, 123 A.D.3d 696, 999 N.Y.S.2d 423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

*697 In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Julia Bien-Aime appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered December 21, 2012, as denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered January 25, 2010, upon her failure to appear or answer the complaint and for leave to interpose an answer.

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

That branch of the motion of the defendant Julia Bien-Aime which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale (hereinafter the judgment) was properly denied, as it was not made within one year after service upon her of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v White, 110 AD3d 759, 760 [2013]; US Natl. Bank Assn. v Melton, 90 AD3d 742, 744 [2011]; Santiago v Honcrat, 79 AD3d 847, 848 [2010]; Malik v Noe, 54 AD3d 733, 734 [2008]). Furthermore, the one-year period should not be extended in the exercise of discretion, since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her lengthy delay in moving to vacate the judgment (see Feldman v Delaney, 94 AD3d 1043 [2012]; Valentin v City of New York, 73 AD3d 755, 756 [2010]; Matter of Putnam County Natl. Bank v JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., 57 AD3d 677, 678 [2008]; Malik v Noe, 54 AD3d at 734).

Rivera, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

OneWest Bank, FSB v. Singer
2025 NY Slip Op 01940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Tait
2025 NY Slip Op 00344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Geffrard
185 N.Y.S.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
U.S. Equities Corp. v. Vante
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019
Haig Press, Inc. v. Renwick
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Queens Med. Supply, Inc. v. Hereford Ins. Co.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Yung Chong Ho v. Uppal
130 A.D.3d 811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 A.D.3d 696, 999 N.Y.S.2d 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-national-assn-v-bien-aime-nyappdiv-2014.