| Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Marous |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03315 [127 AD3d 1012] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as IndentureTrustee for the Registered Holders of Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2004-3 MortgageLoan Asset Backed Notes, Series 2004-3, Respondent, v Gabriel Marous, AlsoKnown as Gabriel J. Marous and Another, Appellant, et al.,Defendants. |
John J. Leen, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Houser & Allison, New York, N.Y. (Zachary R. Gold of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Gabriel Marous appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated June 27, 2013,which denied his motion, made jointly with the defendant Justine Marous, in effect, tovacate their default in answering and to extend their time to serve an answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A defendant who has failed to timely answer a complaint must provide a reasonableexcuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action(see CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a] [1]; Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d 995 [2014]; Vigo v 501 Second St. HoldingCorp., 100 AD3d 871 [2012]; Integon Natl. Ins. Co. v Noterile, 88 AD3d 654, 655[2011]; Maspeth Fed. Sav.& Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]). The determinationof what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the SupremeCourt (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995; Maspeth Fed.Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 890).
Here, the defendants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay inseeking to answer the complaint (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at995). As such, it is unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence ofa potentially meritorious defense (see Cervini v Cisco Gen. Constr., Inc., 123 AD3d 1077[2014]; Cavalry SPV I, LLC vFrenkel, 119 AD3d 724, 725 [2014]; Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117AD3d at 995-996). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant'smotion, made jointly with the defendant Justine Marous, in effect, to vacate their defaultin answering and to extend their time to serve an answer.
To the extent that the appellant's brief purports also to be submitted on behalf of thedefendant Justine Marous, we note that Justine Marous is not an appellant, as no noticeof appeal was filed on her behalf. Rivera, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.