Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Rudman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 18, 2011

80 A.D.3d 651; 914 N.Y.S.2d 672

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Midfirst Bank v. Al-Rahman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rudman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Lawson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Genova (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Capital Source v. AKO Medical (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Capital Source v. AKO Medical (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Russell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Russell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Bitzios v. Michelakis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*652In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Mannes Rudman and Lotty Rudman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated July 8, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale against them upon their failure to answer and denied their cross motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in answering and extend their time to answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the appellants did not answer the complaint until more than eight weeks after their time to do so expired and, even after their untimely answer was immediately rejected, they took no action to remedy their default until many months later. A defendant who seeks to extend the time to appear or to compel acceptance of an untimely answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and show a potentially meritorious defense (see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889 [2010]). Here, the appellants failed to offer any excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint (id.; see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Teel, 74 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2010]). Since the appellants failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 889).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ cross motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in answering and extend their time to answer, and properly granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale against the appellants. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.