| Community Preserv. Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums,LLC |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08110 [89 AD3d 784] |
| November 9, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Community Preservation Corporation,Respondent, v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1] Robinson & Cole LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alan D. Fox, Joseph L. Clasen, and Katherine M.Smith of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose two mortgages, the defendants Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC,and Benzion Stiel appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered April 29, 2010, as granted that branch of the plaintiff'smotion which was for leave to enter a judgment upon their failure to appear or answer, anddenied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept theiranswer as timely.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leaveto enter a judgment upon the failure of the defendants Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, andBenzion Stiel (hereinafter together the defendants) to appear or answer, and denied thedefendants' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept theiranswer as timely. To successfully oppose the plaintiff's motion, and to "compel the plaintiff toaccept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delayand demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action" (Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc., 76AD3d 523, 524 [2010]; see CPLR 3012 [d]; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353,355-356 [2005]). Here, the defendants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay inserving their untimely answer. Contrary to the defendants' contention, under the circumstances ofthis case, their alleged reliance on settlement discussions does not constitute a reasonable excuse(see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. vMcGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Antoine v Bee,[*2]26 AD3d 306 [2006]). Furthermore, the defendants failed todemonstrate that they had a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Ryan v BreezyPoint Coop., Inc., 76 AD3d at 524).
The defendants' remaining contentions are not properly before this Court, as they are raisedfor the first time on appeal (see DanceMagic, Inc. v Pike Realty, Inc., 85 AD3d 1083, 1089 [2011]). Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lottand Roman, JJ., concur.