Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Conway
2012 NY Slip Op 06776 [99 AD3d 755]
October 10, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 28, 2012


Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,Respondent,
v
Purcell Conway, Appellant, et al.,Defendants.

[*1]Purcell Conway, Averne, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barry Weiss ofcounsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Purcell Conway appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated May6, 2011, as denied those branches of his motion which were, in effect, to vacate a judgment offoreclosure and sale of the same court (Kelly, J.), entered January 18, 2008, upon his default inanswering or appearing, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of the defendant PurcellConway (hereinafter the appellant) which was, in effect, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure andsale entered January 18, 2008, upon his default in answering or appearing. A defendant seekingto vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for thedefault and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; US Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d740 [2012]; Fremont Inv. & Loan vBertram, 90 AD3d 988, 988 [2011]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown, 83 AD3d 644, 645 [2011]). Here, theappellant failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing or answering thecomplaint (see Fremont Inv. & Loan v Bertram, 90 AD3d at 988). Since the appellantfailed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not consider whether heproffered a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]; FremontInv. & Loan v Bertram, 90 AD3d at 988).

The appellant's remaining contentions need not be reached in light of the foregoingdetermination. Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.