Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

In re the Foreclosure of Tax Liens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 19, 2012 · Rose

91 A.D.3d 1132; 936 N.Y.2d 763

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Carlson v. Dorsey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens by County of Albany (Phoenix of Albany) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of County of Broome (Alpine Endicott Realty, LLC) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Johnson v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Johnson v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Johnson v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Johnson v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Village Green Hollow, LLC v. Assessor of the Town of Mamakating (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Bullock v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
MatterofSusanUU.vScottVV. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Susan UU. v. Scott VV. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Susan UU. v. Scott VV. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Wood v. Tuttle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Wood v. Tuttle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

Rose, J.

Initially, we must dismiss respondent’s appeal from the December 2008 order granting petitioner’s motion for summary judgment upon his default (see CPLR 5511). County Court appropriately treated respondent’s failure to formally oppose the motion as a default, and his only recourse was to move to vacate the order (see M & C Bros., Inc. v Torum, 75 AD3d 869, 870 [2010]; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Schuh, 48 AD3d 838, 840 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 951 [2008]). Further, contrary to respondent’s argument, it was not error to prohibit his rental agent from appearing on his behalf (see Whitehead v Town House Equities, Ltd., 8 AD3d 369, 370 [2004]).

Nor did County Court err by denying respondent’s motion to vacate the default. The motion papers were insufficient because they failed to proffer both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense in the underlying proceeding (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Clinton County [Miner], 39 AD3d 1015, 1016 [2007]). Finally, respondent’s remaining claims are either unpreserved or cannot be reviewed because they are based on material outside the record on appeal (see Gagen v Kipany Prods., 289 AD2d 844, 845 [2001]; Ughetta v Barile, 210 AD2d 562, 564 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 805 [1995]).

Mercure, A.P.J., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., *1134concur. Ordered that the appeal from the order entered December 8, 2008 is dismissed, without costs. Ordered that the order entered November 23, 2009 is affirmed, without costs.

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