Opinion
2014-02-5
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association, respondent, v. Norma PALMA, appellant, et al., defendants.
Raymond S. Voulo, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. Fein Such & Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael S. Hanusek and Richard Gerbino of counsel), for respondent.
Raymond S. Voulo, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant. Fein Such & Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael S. Hanusek and Richard Gerbino of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Norma Palma appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered July 2, 2012, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept her untimely answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“To compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action” ( Ryan v. Breezy Point Coop., Inc., 76 A.D.3d 523, 524, 904 N.Y.S.2d 910; see Community Preserv. Corp. v. Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 A.D.3d 784, 785, 932 N.Y.S.2d 378). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 889, 890, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403; see Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 903, 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357; Antoine v. Bee, 26 A.D.3d 306, 306, 812 N.Y.S.2d 557).
Here, the appellant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving her answer ( see Community Preserv. Corp. v. Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 A.D.3d at 785, 932 N.Y.S.2d 378; see also Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Raven Brands, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 919 N.Y.S.2d 358; Yao Ping Tang v. Grand Estate, LLC, 77 A.D.3d 822, 823, 910 N.Y.S.2d 104; Dorrer v. Berry, 37 A.D.3d 519, 520, 830 N.Y.S.2d 277; Awad v. Severino, 122 A.D.2d 242, 242, 505 N.Y.S.2d 437). Since the appellant failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether she sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept her untimely answer ( see e.g. Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d at 890, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403; Levi v. Levi, 46 A.D.3d 519, 520, 848 N.Y.S.2d 228). SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.