At page 995 Determining reasonable excuse for delayed answer to complaint12 citing cases“to extend the time to answer the complaint and 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”
- Walczuk v. Techo-Bloc Corp., 242 A.D.3d 1142 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published "To extend the time to answer the complaint and 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" ( M…
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Tedesco, 174 A.D.3d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2019).publishedSince the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his delay in answering the complaint, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( see Vega v West Nostrand Realt…
- Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Marous, 127 A.D.3d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995; Maspeth Fed.
- One West Bank, FSB v. Valdez, 128 A.D.3d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedSav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]; see Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares, 117 AD3d at 995; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Palma, 114 AD3d 645 , 645 [2014]).
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Kuldip, 136 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Zapata, 143 A.D.3d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Adago, 155 A.D.3d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Pelosi, 2018 NY Slip Op 1634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
- Vega v. West Nostrand Realty, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 1120 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2019).published
- Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Ashe, 189 A.D.3d 1130 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2020).published
Show 1 more citing case
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Colucci, 138 A.D.3d 1047 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
At page 996 Concurrence on the merits of the decision3 citing casesBank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]). Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Singh, 153 A.D.3d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).publishedSince 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…
- US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Louis, 148 A.D.3d 758 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).publishedSince 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).publishedSince 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…
Other citing cases
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Saketos, 2018 NY Slip Op 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
- Duprat v. BMW Fin. Servs. Na, LLC, 142 A.D.3d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
v.
Francisco Linares
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Francisco Linares and Flora D. Linares appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (LaSalle, J.), dated January 11, 2012, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to extend their time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept service of that answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To extend the time to answer the complaint and 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 (see CPLR 3012 [d]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d 647 [2014]; Community Preserv. Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 AD3d 784, 785 [2011]; Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc., 76 AD3d 523, 524 [2010]). “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 HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 647; Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306, 306 [2006]).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the appellants did not have a reasonable excuse for their lengthy delay in seeking to answer the complaint (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Izmirligil, 88 AD3d 930, 931 [2011]; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949, 950 [2008]). 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 answering (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648). As such, it is unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Wells Fargo [*996] Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]).
Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.