HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Smart
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Redbridge Bedford, LLC v. 159 N. 3rd St. Realty Holding Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- M&T Bank v. Ronnermann (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Weiss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Singh v. Sukhu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v. Arklis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Jean v. Csencsits (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Wright (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Glanz v. Caterers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Bethpage Fed. Credit Union v. Grant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Leonardo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
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 George M. Smart, Jr., appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered January 11, 2016, as denied those branches of his motion which were to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered February 26, 2014, upon his default in answering the complaint, to set aside the foreclosure sale of the subject property, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing and for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing upon the ground of excusable default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Bank of Am. N.A. v Patino, 128 AD3d 994, 994 [2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hampton, 119 AD3d 856 [2014]). “The absence of a reasonable excuse renders it unnecessary to determine . . . the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action” (US Bank N.A. v Smith, 132 AD3d 848, 851 [2015]; see U.S. Bank N.A. v Hasan, 126 AD3d 683, 684 [2015]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante, 107 AD3d 752, 753 [2013]).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant George M. Smart, Jr., failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint. Thus, it is unnecessary for this Court to consider whether Smart sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see US Bank N.A. v Smith, 132 AD3d at 851; Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante, 107 AD3d at 753; Bank of Am. v Faracco, 89 AD3d 879, 880 [2011]; see also Williamson v Marlou Cab Corp., 129 AD3d 711, 712 [2015]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Smart’s motion which were to vacate his default and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.