| TD Bank, N.A. v Spector |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01314 [114 AD3d 933] |
| February 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| TD Bank, N.A., Respondent, v Joseph Spector,Also Known as Joseph L. Spector, et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1] Cohn & Roth, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael J. Sweeney of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Joseph Spector, also known asJoseph L. Spector, and Marilyn Moriber-Spector, also known as Marilyn J.Moriber-Spector, also known as Marilyn Moriber, appeal, as limited by their brief, fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered February21, 2012, as denied those branches of their motion which were to vacate their default inappearing or answering the complaint and to dismiss the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them based upon the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the noticeprovisions of the mortgage or to serve notice of their default as required by RPAPL1304.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A defendant seeking to be relieved of his or her default in appearing or answeringthe complaint must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentiallymeritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Sussman v Jo-Sta RealtyCorp., 99 AD3d 787 [2012]). Here, the appellants failed to establish areasonable excuse for their failure to appear or answer the complaint (see Gironda v Katzen, 19AD3d 644, 645 [2005]). Moreover, the appellants did not establish a reasonableexcuse for their more than one-year delay in moving to vacate their default (see Karalis v New Dimensions HR,Inc., 105 AD3d 707, 708 [2013]; Arias v First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 AD3d 940,941 [2012]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants'motion which was to vacate their default.
In light of the appellants' failure to establish a reasonable excuse for their default, itis unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of potentiallymeritorious defenses to the action (see Diederich v Wetzel, 112 AD3d 883 [2013]; Arias vFirst Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 100 AD3d at 941).
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson,Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.