| SDF8 CBK, LLC v 689 St. Marks Ave., Inc. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06800 [131 AD3d 1037] |
| September 16, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| SDF8 CBK, LLC, Respondent, v 689 St. MarksAvenue, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
Abraham Hoschander, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.
Kriss & Feuerstein LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jerold C. Feuerstein and Kristine L.Grinberg of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 689 St. Marks Avenue, Inc., andFrank Morris appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated November 29, 2011, as denied that branch oftheir motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the default of the defendant689 St. Marks Avenue, Inc.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering a complaint and to compel theplaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely must show both a reasonable excuse forthe default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 3012[d]; 5015 [a] [1]; Chase HomeFin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d 634 [2014]; Community Preserv. Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC,89 AD3d 784, 785 [2011]; Taddeo-Amendola v 970 Assets, LLC, 72 AD3d 677[2010]; Perfect Care, Inc. vUltracare Supplies, Inc., 71 AD3d 752, 753 [2010]). "The determination of whatconstitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion" (Perfect Care,Inc. v Ultracare Supplies, Inc., 71 AD3d at 753; see Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10AD3d 393, 394 [2004]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569[1997]; Grutman v Southgate At Bar Harbor Home Owners' Assn., 207 AD2d526, 527 [1994]). We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the defendantsfailed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default of the defendant 689 St. MarksAvenue Inc. (hereinafter SMA).
Since the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for SMA's default,the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the subject motion which was tovacate the default, and this Court need not consider whether they proffered a potentiallymeritorious defense to the action (see Blythe v BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 123 AD3d 1073,1074 [2014]; JP Morgan ChaseBank, N.A. v Russo, 121 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2014]; Selechnik v Law Off. of HowardR. Birnbach, 120 AD3d 1220 [2014]). Chambers, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Maltese,JJ., concur.