| Aurora Loan Servs. v Grant |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01605 [70 AD3d 986] |
| February 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Aurora Loan Services, Respondent, v Philip Grant,Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry, LLP, New York, N.Y. (William C. Sandelands ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Philip Grant appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg,J.), dated May 29, 2008, as denied those branches of his motion which were to dismiss thecomplaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and to vacate an orderof the same court (Held, J.), dated March 6, 2008, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion todismiss his counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (a) (7), and granted those branchesof the plaintiff's cross motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and to dismisshis affirmative defenses.
Ordered that the order dated May 29, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a default in opposing a motion, a moving party isrequired to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious claim"(Montague v Rivera, 50 AD3d 656, 657 [2008]; see Raciti v Sands Point NursingHome, 54 AD3d 1014 [2008]; St. Rose v McMorrow, 43 AD3d 1146 [2007]).Contrary to the appellant's contention, he failed to demonstrate that any of his counterclaims hadmerit.
The plaintiff satisfied its prima facie burden establishing its entitlement to judgment as amatter of law (see Popular Fin. Servs., LLC v Williams, 50 AD3d 660 [2008]; U.S.Bank Natl. Assn. TR U/S 6/01/98 [Home Equity Loan Trust 1998-2] v Alvarez, 49 AD3d711 [2008]). In opposition, the appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue offact as to a bona fide defense to the action (see U.S. Bank Trust N.A. Trustee v Butti, 16AD3d 408 [2005]; Mahopac Natl. Bank v Baisley, 244 AD2d 466, 467 [1997]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's cross motionwhich were for summary judgment on the complaint and to dismiss the appellant's affirmativedefenses.
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.