Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brooklyn Heritage, LLC
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Machado v. Galdava (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- American Home Mtge. Acceptance, Inc. v. Lubonty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- NYCTL 2009-A Trust v. Kings Highway Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Izmirligil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- B. Riley Retail Solutions, LLC v. CA Global Partners Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Seidner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bonanno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Hasis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Golden Eagle Capital Corp. v. Paramount Management Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Golden Eagle Capital Corp. v. Paramount Mgt. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
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
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Brooklyn Heritage, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated June 6, 2014, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Brooklyn Heritage, LLC (hereinafter BH), appeals from an order denying its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint as abandoned insofar as asserted against it.
The failure to timely seek a default on an unanswered complaint or counterclaim may be excused if “sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” (CPLR 3215 [c]). This Court has interpreted this language as requiring both a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment, plus a demonstration that the cause of action is potentially meritorious (see LNV Corp. v Forbes, 122 AD3d 805, 806 [2014]; Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d 301, 308 [2011]). The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable *794 in any given instance is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court (see Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d at 308). Here, the plaintiff showed a reasonable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious cause of action. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying BH’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see LNV Corp. v Forbes, 122 AD3d at 806-807).
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.