From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

US Bank v. Lawrence

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Feb 17, 2021
191 A.D.3d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2018–10960 Index No. 28095/07

02-17-2021

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., respondent, v. Wilbert LAWRENCE, appellant, et al., defendants.

Davis, Ndanusa, Ikhlas & Saleem, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mustapha Ndanusa of counsel), for appellant. Reed Smith LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew B. Messite and Melissa A. Brown of counsel), for respondent.


Davis, Ndanusa, Ikhlas & Saleem, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mustapha Ndanusa of counsel), for appellant.

Reed Smith LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew B. Messite and Melissa A. Brown of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Wilbert Lawrence appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mark I. Partnow, J.), dated July 16, 2019. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon an order of the same court dated March 13, 2018, denying those branches of that defendant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate his default in appearing or answering the complaint and pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) and 2004 for leave to serve and file a late answer, inter alia, directed the sale of the subject property.

ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, he failed to establish that he did not receive actual notice of the summons in time to defend the action pursuant to CPLR 317, or that he had a reasonable excuse for his delay in appearing or answering the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) (see Greenwood Realty Co. v. Katz, 187 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 131 N.Y.S.3d 225 ; HSBC Bank USA v. Desrouilleres, 128 A.D.3d 1013, 1015, 11 N.Y.S.3d 93 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate his default in appearing or answering the complaint and pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) and 2004 to serve and file a late answer.

RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

US Bank v. Lawrence

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Feb 17, 2021
191 A.D.3d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

US Bank v. Lawrence

Case Details

Full title:US Bank National Association, etc., respondent, v. Wilbert Lawrence…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Feb 17, 2021

Citations

191 A.D.3d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1087
138 N.Y.S.3d 380

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank v. Logan Estates, LLC

Contrary to Logan's contention, the fact that the court returned the proposed order of reference for…

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Manasia

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, those branches of Lisa's motion which were…