| Fremont Inv. & Loan v Bertram |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09590 [90 AD3d 988] |
| December 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Fremont Investment & Loan, Respondent, v CourtneyBertram, Appellant. |
—[*1] Stevens & Lee, New York, N.Y. (Bradley L. Mitchell and Constantine D. Pourakis ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered July 12, 2010, which denied his motion to vacate ajudgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated April 23, 2007, entered upon his defaultin appearing or answering.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgmentof foreclosure and sale entered against him upon his default in appearing or answering. Adefendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a reasonableexcuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a] [1]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown,83 AD3d 644, 645 [2011]; Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v Astoria Equities,Inc., 71 AD3d 628 [2010]). Here, the defendant failed to set forth a reasonable excusefor his default in appearing or answering the complaint. We therefore need not reach the issue ofwhether the defendant proffered a potentially meritorious defense to the action.
The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached inlight of the foregoing determination. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.