| Apladenaki v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03789 [117 AD3d 975] |
| May 28, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Chariklia Apladenaki, Appellant, v GreenpointMortgage Funding, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al.,Defendants. |
Lawrence Spivak, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Christopher E. Vatter and Antonia M.Donohue of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to set aside a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), entered July 14, 2010, which grantedthat branch of the motion of the defendants Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., andMortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), which was to vacate an order ofthe same court dated February 24, 2010, striking their answer upon their failure to appearfor trial and setting the matter down for an inquest, and to restore the action to the trialcalendar, and denied her cross motion to vacate a so-ordered stipulation dated January20, 2010.
Ordered that the order entered July 14, 2010, is affirmed, with costs.
To vacate the order striking their answer upon their failure to appear for trial, thedefendants Greenpoint Funding, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,Inc. (MERS) (hereinafter together the respondents), were required to demonstrate both areasonable excuse for their default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defenseto the action (see 9 Bros. Bldg.Supply Corp. v Buonamicia, 106 AD3d 968 [2013]; Fleet Mech. Serv. Corp.v Romaz Props., Ltd., 54 AD3d 995 [2008]; Gazetten Contr., Inc. v HCO,Inc., 45 AD3d 530 [2007]). "The determination of what constitutes a reasonableexcuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" (Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB vCharles, 103 AD3d 683, 684 [2013]; see 9 Bros. Bldg. Supply Corp. vBuonamicia, 106 AD3d at 969).
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents' motion whichwas to vacate their default and restore the action to the trial calendar. The respondentsestablished both a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear for trial (see D & W Constr. vIsrael, 54 AD3d 889 [2008]; Birky v Katsilogiannis, 37 AD3d 631, 632 [2007]; Adamo v State of New York,13 AD3d 472 [2004]; Mita v Bianchi, 286 AD2d 376 [2001]), and theexistence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Moreover, there was noshowing by the plaintiff that the respondents' failure to appear was willful, or that theplaintiff was prejudiced by the default (see Toll Bros., Inc. v Dorsch, 91 AD3d 755, 756[2012]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Roman,Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.