This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the CertificateHolders of the CWABS 2005-1, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NO. A-1-CA-37158 GREG M. TRUJILLO, a/k/a GREGORY M. TRUJILLO, 10 Defendant-Appellant, and NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS; TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (IRS), 18 Defendants.

19 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge Doherty & Silva, LLC Lucinda R. Silva Albuquerque, NM for Appellee

3 The Law Offie of Erika E. Anderson Erika Anderson Albuquerque, NM for Appellant 7 MEMORANDUM OPINION VIGIL, Judge.

9 {1} Defendant Greg M. Trujillo has appealed from the district court’s order denying his timely [RP 196, 208] motion to reconsider and denying his motions for an extension of time and to stay the judgment. Unpersuaded that Defendant established error in the district court’s rulings, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Plaintiff Bank of New York has responded to our notice with a memorandum in support. Defendant has not responded to our notice and the time for doing so has expired. See Rule 12-210(D)(2) NMRA (“The parties shall have twenty (20) days from the date of service of the notice of proposed disposition to file and serve a memorandum in opposition.”). The “[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287.

1 {2} For the reasons set forth in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider and denying his motions for extension of time and to stay the judgment.

4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 _______________________________ 6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 _____________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

10 _____________________________ M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge