Madison Acquisition Grp. v. 7614 Fourth Real Est. Dev., 111 A.D.3d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Madison Acquisition Grp. v. 7614 Fourth Real Est. Dev., 111 A.D.3d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 1234 Broadway LLC v. Kai Huang (nyappterm, 2014-04-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 1234 Broadway LLC v. Kai Huang
N.Y. App. Term. · 2014 · confidence medium
Indeed, the record establishes that any such belief was unreasonable under the circumstances of this case (see Madison Acquisition Group, LLC v 7614 Fourth Real Estate Dev., LLC, 111 AD3d at 800; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" Cervini v. Cisco General Construction, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, such a motion “is addressed to the sound discretion of the court” (Needleman v Tornheim, 106 AD3d 707, 708 [2013]; see Madison Acquisition Group, LLC v 7614 Fourth Real Estate Dev., LLC, 111 AD3d 800 , 800 [2013]; Jong II Lee v En Salto, 107 AD3d 950, 950 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alvarez v. Dedvukaj Construction, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to proffer any reasonable excuse for their default (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]; see also Madison Acquisition Group, LLC v 7614 Fourth Real Estate Dev., LLC, 111 AD3d 800 [2013]; Dave Sandel, Inc. v Specialized Indus.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Madison Acquisition Group, LLC
v.
7614 Fourth Real Estate Development, LLC, and Mousa Khalil
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 20, 2013.
111 A.D.3d 800
Published

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 9, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendant Mousa Khalil pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated January 17, 2012, entered upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.

“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” (Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2013]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Such a motion “is addressed to the sound discretion of the court” (Needleman v Tornheim, 106 AD3d 707, 708 [2013]).

As the plaintiff correctly contends, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, in effect, vacating the default of the defendant Mousa Khalil. The record demonstrates that Khalil was validly served in the action, as he failed to come forward with any factually specific, detailed evidence to rebut the presumption of valid service created by the process server’s affidavit of service (see ACT Props., LLC v Garcia, 102 AD3d 712, 713 [2013]; Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v Quattrochi, 99 AD3d 763 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Espejo, 92 AD3d 707, 708 [2012]). Moreover, Khalil’s assertion that he did not serve an answer because he thought that the attorneys for his codefendants also were representing his interests is insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default. The evidence in the record establishes that any such belief on the part of Khalil was unreasonable under the circumstances of this case (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]).

Moreover, in light of the language of the guaranty that he executed, Khalil failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense (see Inland Mtge. Capital Corp. v Realty Equities NM, LLC, 71 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2010]; North Fork Bank v Computer[*801] ized Quality Separation Corp., 62 AD3d 973 [2009]; Red Tulip, LLC v Neiva, 44 AD3d 204, 209 [2007]).

Khalil’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.