Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles
Opinion of the Court
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Hiram
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Hiram Charles, in effect, to vacate his default in appearing or answering, and pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer, since he failed to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Intervest Natl. Bank v Ashburton 70, LLC, 87 AD3d 617 [2011]; Moriano v Provident N.Y. Bancorp, 71 AD3d 747 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.