Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Villanueva

220 A.D.3d 978, 198 N.Y.S.3d 578, 2023 NY Slip Op 05420

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 25, 2023
• Docket: Index No. 511340/14
• Status: Published

Opinion

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Villanueva (2023 NY Slip Op 05420)

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Villanueva

2023 NY Slip Op 05420

Decided on October 25, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 25, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
ROBERT J. MILLER
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

2021-01751
(Index No. 511340/14)

[*1]Wells Fargo Bank, NA, respondent,

v

Carlos Villanueva, appellant, et al., defendants.

Lawrence Spivak, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.

Wood Oviatt Gilman, LLP (Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY [Andrew B. Messite and Michael V. Margarella], of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Carlos Villanueva appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated March 4, 2020. The order denied that defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate, inter alia, an order of the same court dated March 13, 2018, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion, among other things, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon its default in opposing a motion must demonstrate, through the submission of supporting facts in evidentiary form, both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Imtiaz, 198 AD3d 1005, 1007). "A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the court" (Vujanic v Petrovic, 103 AD3d 791, 792). Here, while the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his default, he failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious opposition.

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., IANNACCI, MILLER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Acting Clerk of the Court