Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown

2011 NY Slip Op 02831 [83 AD3d 644]

April 5, 2011

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Citimortgage, Inc., Respondent, v Isaac Brown,Appellant.

—[*1]Hanig & Schutzman, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Adrienne Odierna of counsel), forappellant. Sweeney, Gallo, Reich & Bolz, LLP, Rego Park, N.Y. (Rashel M. Mehlman ofcounsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the SupremeCourt, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated November 2, 2009, which denied his motion to vacate ajudgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated January 14, 2009, entered upon hisfailure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate areasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (seeCPLR 5015 [a] [1]; DevelopmentStrategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 AD3d 628 [2010];U.S. Bank N.A. v Slavinski, 78AD3d 1167 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failedto establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear or answer. In any event, the defendantfailed to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for thefirst time on appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosureand sale, entered upon his failure to appear or answer, was correctly denied. Rivera, J.P.,Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.