| Tuthill Fin. v Abundant Life Church, U.P.C., Inc. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08329 [122 AD3d 918] |
| November 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Tuthill Finance, Respondent, v Abundant LifeChurch, U.P.C., Inc., Also Known as Abundant Life Church, Inc., Appellant, et al.,Defendants. |
Walter T. Ramsey, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Robinowitz Cohlan Dubow and Doherty, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (BruceMinkoff of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Abundant Life Church, U.P.C.,Inc., also known as Abundant Life Church, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), enteredSeptember 20, 2012, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate ajudgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered March 12, 2010, upon itsfailure to appear or answer.
Ordered the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Abundant LifeChurch, U.P.C., Inc., also known as Abundant Life Church, Inc. (hereinafter thedefendant), pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (3) to vacate the judgment of foreclosureand sale. To the extent that the defendant sought to vacate its default pursuant to CPLR5015 (a) (1), the defendant was not entitled to relief, as it failed to demonstrate both areasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense(see generally Wells FargoBank, N.A. v Hampton, 119 AD3d 856, 856 [2014]; Jackson-Cutler v Long, 2AD3d 590 [2003]). To the extent the defendant sought to vacate its default pursuantto CPLR 5015 (a) (3), the defendant was not entitled to relief, as it failed to demonstrateany fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the plaintiff (see Bay Crest Assn., Inc. vPaar, 99 AD3d 744, 746 [2012]; Gaw v Gaw, 80 AD3d 557, 558 [2011]; see generallyWells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hampton, 119 AD3d at 856).
The defendant's contention that it was entitled to a hearing on the issue of whetherthe plaintiff backdated an assignment of the mortgage in order to gain the standingnecessary to prosecute this action is without merit. There is no support in the record forthe defendant's conclusory claim that the assignment was improperly backdated.Moreover, "as long as the plaintiff can establish its lawful status as assignee, either bywritten assignment or physical delivery, prior to the filing of the complaint, the recordingof a written assignment after the commencement of the action does not defeat standing"(Aurora Loan Servs., LLC vWeisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 108 [2011]; see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Persad, 117 AD3d 676, 677[2014]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Dillon,J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.