| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hampton |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05424 [119 AD3d 856] |
| July 23, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, v LauraG. Hampton, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
Max Markus Katz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Anil K. Prabhu of counsel), forappellant.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Laura G. Hampton appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated March 13, 2013, which,inter alia, denied those branches of her motion which were to vacate an order ofreference of the same court (Vaughan, J.) dated November 3, 2008, and to vacate ajudgment of foreclosure and sale dated June 10, 2009, both entered upon her default inappearing or answering the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing upon the groundof excusable default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and apotentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vRamirez, 117 AD3d 674 [2014]; Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880 [2013]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97AD3d 740 [2012]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Luden, 91 AD3d 701, 701[2012]). In addition, CPLR 5015 (a) (3) permits a court to vacate a judgment or orderupon the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverseparty.
Here, the defendant Laura G. Hampton (hereinafter the defendant) did not show areasonable excuse for her default. In the absence of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessaryto determine whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentiallymeritorious defense to the action (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gioia, 114 AD3d 766[2014]; Deutsche Bank Natl.Trust Co. v White, 110 AD3d 759, 760 [2013]).
Moreover, the defendant failed to make a showing of a misrepresentation or that theplaintiff engaged in the type of fraud or other misconduct that would warrant vacatur ofthe order of reference or the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a)(3) (see e.g. U.S. Bank N.A. vAllen, 102 AD3d 955 [2013]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Tate, 102 AD3d 859 [2013]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant'smotion which were to vacate the order of reference and judgment of foreclosure and saleentered upon her default.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remainingcontention. Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.