| HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roldan |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00188 [80 AD3d 566] |
| January 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Respondent, v Marina Roldan et al.,Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allison J. Schoenthal, Victoria McKenney, and JessicaL. Ellsworth, pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the defendants Marina Roldan and RichardRoldan appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, PutnamCounty (O'Rourke, J.), dated July 27, 2009, as granted the plaintiff's motion, in effect, for leave toenter a default judgment against them upon their failure to answer the complaint and for an order ofreference, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated September 1, 2009, as denied theirmotion, in effect, to vacate their default in answering the complaint, and to dismiss the complaint forlack of personal jurisdiction and lack of standing, or for leave to serve a late answer and third-partycomplaint.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to timelyserve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and the existence ofa potentially meritorious defense (see May vHartsdale Manor Owners Corp., 73 AD3d 713 [2010]; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616[2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d1067, 1068 [2005]; Thompson vSteuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864, 865 [2005]; Dinstber v Fludd, 2 AD3d 670, 671 [2003]). Here, the appellants failedto demonstrate a reasonable excuse. Since the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse fortheir default, it is unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentiallymeritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46AD3d 519, 520 [2007]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d at 1068). Accordingly, theSupreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgmentagainst the appellants and for an order of reference, and properly denied the appellants' motion, ineffect, to vacate the default, and to dismiss the complaint, or for leave to serve a late answer andthird-party complaint.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Austin and Roman,JJ., concur.