Citibank (S.D.), N.A. v Baron

2014 NY Slip Op 02008 [115 AD3d 901]

March 26, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Respondent, v InezBaron, Appellant.

—[*1]Inez Baron, Lido Beach, N.Y., appellant pro se.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated March 8, 2012, which denied hermotion to vacate a prior order of the same court entered November 22, 2011, granting theplaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order dated March 8, 2012, is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.

In order to vacate her default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for herdefault and a potentially meritorious defense (see Donovan v Chiapetta, 72 AD3d 635 [2010]; Aurora Loan Servs. v Grant,70 AD3d 986 [2010]; Political Mktg., Int'l, Inc. v Jaliman, 67 AD3d 661 [2009]).Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for her default or theexistence of a potentially meritorious defense. Therefore, the Supreme Court properlydenied her motion. Dickerson, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.