JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Palma
2014 NY Slip Op 00635 [114 AD3d 645]
February 5, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 26, 2014


JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association,Respondent,
v
Norma Palma, Appellant, et al.,Defendants.

[*1]Raymond S. Voulo, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

Fein Such & Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael S. Hanusek and RichardGerbino of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Norma Palma appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered July 2, 2012, whichdenied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept heruntimely answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"To compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant mustprovide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritoriousdefense to the action" (Ryan vBreezy Point Coop., Inc., 76 AD3d 523, 524 [2010]; see Community Preserv. Corp. vBridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 AD3d 784, 785 [2011]). "Thedetermination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion ofthe Supreme Court" (MaspethFed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]; see Star Indus., Inc. v InnovativeBeverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306, 306 [2006]).

Here, the appellant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving heranswer (see Community Preserv. Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89AD3d at 785; see also GaralWholesalers, Ltd. v Raven Brands, Inc., 82 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2011]; Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate,LLC, 77 AD3d 822, 823 [2010]; Dorrer v Berry, 37 AD3d 519, 520 [2007]; Awad vSeverino, 122 AD2d 242, 242 [1986]). Since the appellant failed to offer areasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether she sufficiently demonstratedthe existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Thus, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) tocompel the plaintiff to accept her untimely answer (see e.g. Maspeth Fed. Sav. &Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 890; Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519, 520 [2007]). Skelos, J.P.,Dickerson, Chambers and Miller, 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.