Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision affirms the Supreme Court's denial of the defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1). The court held that the defendants' conclusory allegations of law office failure were insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the plaintiff's prior motions for summary judgment and foreclosure. Consequently, the appellate court found no need to address whether the defendants demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense. The order denying the motion to vacate is affirmed with costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiff's motions, thereby warranting vacatur of the 2017 summary‑judgment order and the 2018 foreclosure judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(1).
Holdings
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate because the defendants failed to show a reasonable excuse for their defaults and therefore the court need not consider the meritorious‑opposition prong.
Key quotations
“A party seeking to vacate an order or judgment entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion.” (at 1)
Factual background
CitiMortgage sued Richard and Lois Ramlal to foreclose a mortgage on a Brooklyn property. The defendants failed to oppose the plaintiff's summary‑judgment motion and later the motion for a foreclosure judgment, resulting in orders granting summary judgment and a foreclosure sale. The sales were later stayed because the defendants filed for bankruptcy. In 2021 the defendants sought to vacate those orders, alleging attorney failure, but provided no credible explanation.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a foreclosure action in April 2015. The court granted the plaintiff's unopposed summary‑judgment motion on January 3, 2017 and a judgment of foreclosure and sale on February 28, 2018. Subsequent foreclosure sales were cancelled after the defendants filed for bankruptcy. In September 2021 the defendants moved to vacate the 2017 and 2018 orders under CPLR 5015(a)(1); the trial court denied the motion and the defendants appealed.