Fed. Nat'l Mortg. v. Sajdak

3 Citing cases

  1. Wang v. IV - CVCF NEB REO, LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2722 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    A defendant who has failed to timely answer a complaint and who seeks leave to serve a late answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 3012[d]; HSBC Bank USA v Pantel, 208 A.D.3d 643, 644; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Sajdak, 192 A.D.3d 764, 765). A defendant opposing a facially adequate motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to appear or timely serve an answer, must make a similar showing (see Nowakowski v Stages, 179 A.D.3d 822, 823).

  2. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Deluca

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Here, defendant did not seek leave to serve a late answer until approximately 10 months after the expiration of his time to serve an answer, but there is no indication that the failure to serve an answer was willful. Defense counsel instead attributed the delay to defendant's unsuccessful pro se negotiations with plaintiff - of which little detail was given, but which plaintiff also notably failed to deny had occurred - after which defendant promptly sought legal assistance upon receiving plaintiff's motion for a default judgment (compare Bank of N.Y. v Richards, 192 A.D.3d 1228, 1229-1230 [3d Dept 2021], and Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Sajdak, 192 A.D.3d 764, 765 [2d Dept 2021], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1087 [2021], with General Elec. Tech. Servs. Co. v Perez, 156 A.D.2d 781, 783-784 [3d Dept 1989]). Plaintiff further offered no explanation as to how it would be prejudiced by allowing defendant to serve a late answer.

  3. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. v. Sajdak

    192 A.D.3d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

    ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The appeal must be dismissed because the order appealed from was superseded by an order of the same court dated October 1, 2018, made upon reargument ( see Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Sajdak, 192 A.D.3d 764, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2018–13117 ; decided herewith]). RIVERA, J.P., DUFFY, IANNACCI and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.