| US Bank N.A. v Caronna |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01452 [92 AD3d 865] |
| February 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| US Bank National Association, Respondent, v Anthony A.Caronna et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Victoria McKenney, EmilyDeninger, and Chava Brandriss of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered January 5, 2011, as,upon granting that branch of their motion which was to vacate their default in appearing oranswering the complaint, in effect, denied those branches of their motion which were to dismissthe complaint or, in the alternative, to vacate an order of reference dated September 23, 2009,and a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 21, 2010, based upon the plaintiff's failure tocomply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied those branches of the defendants' motionwhich were to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to vacate an order of reference datedSeptember 23, 2009, and a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 21, 2010, based upon theplaintiff's failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Under thecircumstances, it is not clear whether the mortgage at issue was subject to the requirements ofRPAPL 1304 and, if so, whether the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements ofthat statute (see RPAPL 1304; cf. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 103[2011]).
The defendants' remaining contention is not properly before this Court as it is raised for thefirst time in their reply brief (seeNationwide Insulation & Sales, Inc. v Nova Cas. Co., 74 AD3d 1297, 1299 [2010]).Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.