U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Stewart, 97 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Stewart, 97 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Bank of New York v. Krausz, 144 A.D.3d 718 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 740 Demonstrating excuse for default to vacate judgment5 citing casesThe Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale dated September 7, 2007,…opening of page *740 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 3 listed here
  • Bank of New York v. Krausz, 144 A.D.3d 718 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    Since the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d at 740; Reich…
  • HSBC Mortg. Corp. (USA) v. Morocho, 106 A.D.3d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Moreover, in light of Morocho’s failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to timely appear in the action, it is unnecessary to evaluate whether her proffered defense was potentially meritorious (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 9…
  • Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pietranico, 102 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d at 740; Reich…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee Relating to J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. 2005-FRE1 Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-FRE1
v.
Andrew Stewart
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 18, 2012.
Published opinion
97 A.D.3d 740
Published

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale dated September 7, 2007, entered upon their default in appearing or answering the complaint. A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Luden, 91 AD3d 701, 701 [2012]; Fremont Inv. & Loan v Bertram, 90 AD3d 988 [2011]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown, 83 AD3d 644, 645 [2011]). Here, while the defendants initially alleged that copies of the summons and complaint were improperly served upon them, pursuant to a stipulation resolving that issue made in open court on December 4, 2008, they subsequently acknowledged proper service. Since the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default, it was unnecessary to determine whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Tribeca Lending Corp. v Correa, 92 AD3d 770, 771 [2012]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]).

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of their motion which sought to vacate the stipulation of settlement (see Reid v C & S Realty Mgt., LLC, 94 AD3d 732 [2012]; see generally Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]).

[*741] The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.