HSBC Bank USA v. Lafazan, 115 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
HSBC Bank USA v. Lafazan, 115 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Participation in mandatory settlement conferences does not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer a residential mortgage foreclosure complaint.

In a residential mortgage foreclosure action, defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer, arguing that participation in mandatory settlement conferences and reliance on the plaintiff's counsel constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay. The court applied the rule that a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to compel acceptance of an untimely answer. The court held that the defendants' appearances at settlement conferences did not excuse the delay, which occurred more than eight months after the time to answer expired. Furthermore, the specialized summons served in the action contained warnings that belied any claim of reliance on the plaintiff's counsel. Because the defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse, the court affirmed the denial of the motion.

79 citation events (79 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Fowkes, 2025 NY Slip Op 34093(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty. 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 648 Determining reasonable excuse for late answer to complaint20 citing cases18 listed here
  • U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Fowkes, 2025 NY Slip Op 34093(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty. 2025).unpublished 2 cites
    Assn. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648,983 NYS2d at 33 [2d Dept 2014], Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minou, 115 AD3d 634 , 634-45, 981 NYS2d 757 , 758 [2d Dept 2014]).
  • Hingorani v. Venus Enters. 11 Corp., 208 A.D.3d 1229 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2022).published
    Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider whether they sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan , 115 AD3d at 648).
  • Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Abrahim, 183 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2020).published
    Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan , 115 AD3d at 648; U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart , 97 AD3d…
  • Bank of Am., N.A. v. Viener, 172 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2019).published
    Since the defendants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering, it is not necessary to determine whether they demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Movtady , 1…
  • Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Movtady, 2018 NY Slip Op 7085 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
    Here, since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default, it is not necessary to determine whether she demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan , 115 AD3d at 648; JP Morg…
  • Bank of Am., N.A. v. Welga, 2018 NY Slip Op 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
    In light of the defendants' failure to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether they sufficiently demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan , 115 AD3d at 648; U.S. Bank N.A.…
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Singh, 153 A.D.3d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published 2 cites
    Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his delay in answering, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d…
  • HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Powell, 148 A.D.3d 1123 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Mellon v Colucci, 138 AD3d 1047 [2016]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d 647 , 648 [2014]). “ The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court’ ” (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v…
  • US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Louis, 148 A.D.3d 758 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Since Louis failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her delay in answering, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Comfort Boampong,…
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Boampong, 145 A.D.3d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published 2 cites
    Since Boampong failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her delay in answering, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at…
Show 8 more citing cases
  • Bank of New York Mellon v. Colucci, 138 A.D.3d 1047 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published 2 cites
    Marks Ave., Inc., 131 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2015]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]).
  • U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ahmed, 137 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    Loan Trust 2006-17XS v Waldman, 131 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2015]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648; Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d 634 , 634-635 [2014]).
  • Morgan Stanley Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-17XS v. Waldman, 131 A.D.3d 1140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    Furthermore, the summons contained express warnings to answer the complaint and to speak to an attorney (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d at 634-635; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 647).
  • One West Bank, FSB v. Valdez, 128 A.D.3d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    Since Valdez failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is not necessary to consider whether she sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Stover, 124 AD3d 575 [2015]; HSBC Bank USA…
  • Emigrant Bank v. O. Carl Wiseman, 127 A.D.3d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    The Wisemans did not dispute that the summons provided to them by the plaintiff contained express warnings to answer the complaint and speak to an attorney (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d at 634-635; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafa…
  • HSBC Bank USA v. Lugo, 127 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    Even if there were settlement discussions between the parties, such negotiations cannot extend the time to serve an answer to the foreclosure complaint ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. , 115 AD3d at 648).
  • HSBC Bank USA v. Rotimi, 121 A.D.3d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    Moreover, the defendant’s assertions are belied by the language included in the summons warning her that she was in “IN DANGER OF LOSING” her home, that she should “[s]peak to an attorney or go to the court,” and that she “MUST RESPOND BY…
  • Mannino Dev., Inc. v. Linares, 117 A.D.3d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published 4 cites
    The appellants’ appearance and participation, along with their counsel, at settlement conferences required for certain residential mortgage foreclosure actions (see 22 NYCRR 202.12-a) do not provide a reasonable excuse for their delay in a…
At page 647 Appealing from a foreclosure mortgage order4 citing cases3 listed here
  • Morgan Stanley Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-17XS v. Waldman, 131 A.D.3d 1140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    Furthermore, the summons contained express warnings to answer the complaint and to speak to an attorney (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d at 634-635; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 647).
  • Emigrant Bank v. O. Carl Wiseman, 127 A.D.3d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    The Wisemans did not dispute that the summons provided to them by the plaintiff contained express warnings to answer the complaint and speak to an attorney (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d at 634-635; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafa…
  • Mannino Dev., Inc. v. Linares, 117 A.D.3d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published 4 cites
    The appellants’ appearance and participation, along with their counsel, at settlement conferences required for certain residential mortgage foreclosure actions (see 22 NYCRR 202.12-a) do not provide a reasonable excuse for their delay in a…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HSBC Bank USA, National Association
v.
Jeffrey Lafazan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 5, 2014.
Published opinion
115 A.D.3d 647
Balkin, Chambers, Cohen, Dillon.
Published

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Jeffrey Lafazan and Sandra Lafazan appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered August 24,[*648] 2012, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their late 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 AD3d 523, 524 [2010]; see Community Preserv. Corp. v. Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 AD3d 784, 785 [2011]). “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 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]; see Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306, 306 [2006]).

Here, the appellants’ appearance and participation, along with their counsel, at settlement conferences required for certain residential mortgage foreclosure actions (see 22 NYCRR 202.12-a) evinced a desire to save their home. However, such appearances do not provide a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering. At the time the first conference was held, approximately 261 days had passed since the appellants’ time to answer the complaint had expired (see CPLR 3012 [a]). Under the circumstances of this case, the appellants’ purported reliance on settlement discussions and their contention, in effect, that the plaintiffs counsel should have advised them that they were in default, do not constitute a reasonable excuse (see Community Preserv. Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 AD3d at 785; see also Onewest Bank FSB v Berry, 25 Misc 3d 1218[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52171[U] [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2009]). Moreover, these assertions are belied by the content and warning contained in the specialized summons served in this action to foreclose a residential mortgage (see RPAPL 1320). Since the appellants failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether they sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer as timely.

Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.