| Wells Fargo Bank v Linzenberg |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02996 [50 AD3d 674] |
| April 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Wells Fargo Bank, Appellant, v Egon Linzenberg et al.,Defendants, and Karen Linzenberg, Respondent. |
—[*1] David Isaacson, New City, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the SupremeCourt, Rockland County (Liebowitz, J.), entered April 25, 2007, which granted the motion of thedefendant Karen Linzenberg, also known as Karen DeFiebre, in effect, to vacate the judgment offoreclosure and sale entered October 19, 2005 upon her default in answering or appearing.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion,with costs, and the motion of the defendant Karen Linzenberg, also known as Karen DeFiebre, ineffect, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered October 19, 2005 is denied, and thejudgment entered October 19, 2005 is reinstated.
The defendant Karen Linzenberg, also known as Karen DeFiebre, failed to present areasonable excuse for her default in answering or appearing in this action (see CPLR5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986];Bank of N.Y. v Segui, 42 AD3d555 [2007]; Fischman v Gilmore, 246 AD2d 508 [1998]; Morel v Clacherty,186 AD2d 638 [1992]; Shaw v Shaw, 97 AD2d 403 [1983]). Furthermore, herallegations that the plaintiff committed or participated in fraud are broad and unsubstantiated (see Aames Capital Corp. v Davidsohn,24 AD3d 474, 475 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied hermotion to vacate.
In light of this determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions. Mastro,J.P., Ritter, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.