| Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03802 [117 AD3d 995] |
| May 28, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Mannino Development, Inc.,Respondent, v Francisco Linares et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
Edward M. Gould, Islip, N.Y., for appellants.
Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Ronald P.Labeck of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Francisco Linares and Flora D.Linares appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Suffolk County (LaSalle, J.), dated January 11, 2012, as denied their motion pursuant toCPLR 3012 (d) to extend their time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiffto accept service of that answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To extend the time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept anuntimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delayand demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012[d]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. vLafazan, 115 AD3d 647 [2014]; Community Preserv. Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC,89 AD3d 784, 785 [2011]; Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc., 76 AD3d 523, 524[2010]). "The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sounddiscretion of the Supreme Court" (Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d889, 890 [2010]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 647;Star Indus., Inc. v InnovativeBeverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306, 306 [2006]).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that theappellants did not have a reasonable excuse for their lengthy delay in seeking to answerthe complaint (see Bank of N.Y.Mellon v Izmirligil, 88 AD3d 930, 931 [2011]; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d949, 950 [2008]). The appellants' appearance and participation, along with theircounsel, at settlement conferences required for certain residential mortgage foreclosureactions (see 22 NYCRR 202.12-a) do not provide a reasonable excuse for theirdelay in answering (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648).As such, it is unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of apotentially meritorious defense (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, 790[2011]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.