| Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kuldip |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01287 [136 AD3d 969] |
| February 24, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,Appellant, v Jagdesh Kuldip et al., Defendants, and Sherifat Oladopo,Respondent. |
Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY (David Dunn, Chava Brandriss, andCourtney Colligan of counsel), for appellant.
Peter A. Joseph, New York, NY, for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated March6, 2014, as granted the motion of the defendant Sherifat Oladopo pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to extend her time to answer the complaint, and denied that branch of its cross motionwhich was pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against thatdefendant.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs,the motion of the defendant Sherifat Oladopo pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to extend hertime to answer the complaint is denied, and that branch of the plaintiff's cross motionwhich was pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against thatdefendant is granted.
"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" (Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares,117 AD3d 995, 995 [2014]; see CPLR 3012 [d]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. vLafazan, 115 AD3d 647, 648 [2014]; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d890, 891 [2010]). Here, the defendant Sherifat Oladopo offered no reasonableexcuse for her failure to timely answer the complaint (see Maspeth Fed. Sav. &Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 891). Since Oladopo failed to offer a reasonableexcuse, it is not necessary to consider whether she demonstrated a potentially meritoriousdefense (see Emigrant Bank vO. Carl Wiseman, 127 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2015]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. vRotimi, 121 AD3d 855, 856 [2014]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred ingranting Oladopo's motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to extend her time to answer thecomplaint.
The Supreme Court also erred in denying that branch of the plaintiff's cross motionwhich was pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment againstOladopo. "On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, themovant is required to submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof ofthe facts constituting its claim, and proof of the defaulting party's default in answering orappearing" (Atlantic Cas. Ins.Co. v RJNJ Servs., Inc., 89 AD3d 649, 651 [2011]; see CPLR 3215 [f];BAC Home Loans Servicing,LP v Reardon, 132 AD3d 790, 790 [2015]). Here, in support of its motion, theplaintiff satisfied these requirements (see BAC [*2]Home Loans Servicing, LP v Reardon, 132 AD3d at790; US Bank N.A. vDorestant, 131 AD3d 467, 469-470 [2015]; Dupps v Betancourt, 99 AD3d 855, 855 [2012])."[S]uccessful opposition to a CPLR 3215 motion for leave to enter a default judgmentrequires the same showing as an affirmative motion for leave to extend the time toanswer," including, inter alia, demonstrating the existence of a reasonable excuse for thedefault (Fried v Jacob Holding,Inc., 110 AD3d 56, 66 [2013]; see Weinstein v Schacht, 98 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2012]). Inopposition to the plaintiff's cross motion, Oladopo failed to demonstrate that she had areasonable excuse for her default (see US Bank N.A. v Dorestant, 131 AD3d at470; Allstate Ins. Co. vAustin, 48 AD3d 720, 721 [2008]).
Oladopo's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Roman andDuffy, JJ., concur.