potentially meritorious defense in New York

2026Once the plaintiff has made such a showing, the defendant, in order to avoid entry of a default judgment, "must show either that there was no default, or that [the defendant] has a reasonable excuse for its delay and a potentially meritorious defense" (<i>Fried v Jacob Holding, Inc.</i>, 110 AD3d at 60 ; <i>see</i> <i>Atlantic Cas.

2025Discussion "To defeat a facially adequate CPLR 3215 motion, a defendant must show either that there was no default, or that it has a reasonable excuse for its delay and a potentially meritorious defense" (Fried v Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 AD3d 56 60 [2d Dept 2013] [citations omitted]).

2020"The absence of a reasonable excuse for the default renders it unnecessary to determine whether the [defendant] demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense" ( Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante , 107 AD3d 752, 753 [2013] [citation omitted]; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini , 84 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]).

2020Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Wells Faro Bank, N.A. v Cervini , 84 AD3d at 790 ).

2019HSBC did not default, and LSF8 demonstrated that it had a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action based on language in the first mortgage that conferred upon MERS the authority to assign the mortgage ( see Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City of Long Beach , 152 AD3d 683, 684 ; Ingvarsdottir v Gaines, Gruner, Ponzini & Novick, LLP , 144 AD3d 1097, 1098 ; Fried v Jacob Holding, Inc. , 110 AD3d 56, 60 ; Wassertheil v Elburg, LLC , 94 AD3d 753 ; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg , 86 AD3d 274, 281 ).

2019"To successfully oppose a facially adequate motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to appear or timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense" ( Loughran v Giannoti , 160 AD3d at 710; see Jing Shan Chen v R & K 51 Realty, Inc. , 148 AD3d 689, 690 ; Wassertheil v Elburg , LLC, 94 AD3d 753 ).

2026For a defendant, or, in this case, the respondent, to obtain an extension of time to serve and file its answer under CPLR 2004, it must show that it has, in addition to a reasonable excuse for its default, a potentially meritorious defense ( see Singh v Pradhan , 229 AD3d 472 ; National Loan Invs., L.P. v Bruno , 191 AD3d 999 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan , 115 AD3d 647 ).

2026In light of the respondent's failure to proffer a reasonable excuse for his delay, it is not necessary to determine whether there is a potentially meritorious defense to the proceeding ( see Singh v Pradhan , 229 AD3d at 473; National Loan Invs., L.P. v Bruno , 191 AD3d at 1001 ; Bank of Am., N.A. v Welga , 157 AD3d 753 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan , 115 AD3d 647 ).

2019Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC , 89 AD3d 784 ; Taddeo-Amendola v 970 Assets, LLC , 72 AD3d 677 ).

2018Corp. v Bridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 AD3d 784 ; Taddeo-Amendola v 970 Assets, LLC, 72 AD3d 677 ).

2023The absence of a reasonable excuse for the default renders it unnecessary to determine whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see id. at 753 ).

2020"The absence of a reasonable excuse for the default renders it unnecessary to determine whether the [defendant] demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense" ( Citimortgage, Inc. v Bustamante , 107 AD3d 752, 753 [2013] [citation omitted]; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini , 84 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]).

2012A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Pursoo v Ngala-El, 89 AD3d 712 [2011]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown, 83 AD3d 644, 645 [2011]).

2012“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” (Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown, 83 AD3d 644, 644 [2011]; see Private Capital Group, LLC v Hosseinipour, 86 AD3d 554, 556 [2011]).

2023In light of this conclusion, we do not consider whether undertenant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Tlais v Cinozgumes , 189 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2020]; Lane v Smith , 84 AD3d 746, 748 [2011]).

2023In light of this conclusion, we do not consider whether undertenant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Tlais v Cinozgumes , 189 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2020]; Lane v Smith , 84 AD3d 746, 748 [2011]).

2018A parent seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in a termination of parental rights proceeding must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the relief sought in the [*2]petition ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Matter of Clarence D.H. [Fidelina A.], 150 AD3d at 1114 ; Matter of Isabella R.W. [Jessica W.], 142 AD3d at 504 ; Matter of Stephen Daniel A. [Sandra M.-A.], 122 AD3d at 839 ; Matter of Mia P.R.D. [David D.], 113 AD3d at 680; Matter of Daniel Marcus Y. [Marilyn Y.], 77 AD3d 843, 843 ).

2017A parent seeking, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in a termination of parental rights proceeding must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the relief sought in the petition (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Isabella R.W. [Jessica W.J, 142 AD3d at 504 ; Matter of Stephen Daniel A. [Sandra M.-A.], 122 AD3d at 839 ; Matter of Mia P.R.D. [David D.], 113 AD3d at 680; Matter of Daniel Marcus Y. [Marilyn Y.], 77 AD3d 843, 843 [2010]).

2013In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see Alterbaum v Shubert Org., Inc., 80 AD3d at 636 ; Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d 707, 709 [2010]; Segovia v Deleon Constr.

2013In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see Alterbaum v Shubert Org., Inc., 80 AD3d at 636 ; Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d 707, 709 [2010]; Segovia v Deleon Constr.

2023For purposes of establishing a potentially meritorious defense, "[a] verified pleading may be accepted in lieu of an affidavit of merit" ( Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 15 AD3d 353, 356 ).

2017To compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely or to extend the time for a defendant to answer, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc., 76 AD3d 523 , 524 [2010]; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]).

2019Here, since the mother failed to establish that she had either a reasonable excuse for her default or a potentially meritorious defense, we agree with the denial of that branch of her motion which was to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as found that she permanently neglected the child ( see id. ; Matter of Raphanello J.N.L.L. [Rasheem L.] , 119 AD3d 580 ; Matter of Jenna C. [Omisa C.] , 81 AD3d 941, 942 ).

2019The father's conclusory affidavit, and the conclusory affirmation of his counsel, without more, were insufficient to establish a potentially meritorious defense to the allegations of the petition ( see Family Ct Act § 1042; Matter of Annata M. [Clinton C.], 140 AD3d 959, 961 ; Matter of Zeeyana B. [Darnell B.] , 84 AD3d 1227 ; Matter of Jenna C. [Omisa C.] , 81 AD3d 941, 942 ).

2019Corp. , 29 AD3d 673, 674 ).

2014Corp., 29 AD3d 673, 674 [2006]; Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent.

2026Barnabas Hosp. , 16 NY3d at 80 ).

2026Barnabas Hosp. , 16 NY3d at 80).

2014Since the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the short delay in the service of an answer, and in light of the lack of willfulness on the part of the respondent, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CFLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment against the respondent on the issue of liability and granting the respondent’s cross motion to deem its late answer timely served nunc pro tunc (see CFLR 2004, 3012 [d]; Fried v Jaco

2014Since the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the short delay in the service of an answer, and in light of the lack of willfulness on the part of the respondent, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CFLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment against the respondent on the issue of liability and granting the respondent’s cross motion to deem its late answer timely served nunc pro tunc (see CFLR 2004, 3012 [d]; Fried v Jaco

2015Thus, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of whether the appellant had a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880 [2013]).

2015If a defendant fails to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880 [2013] ).

2025"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" ( Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares , 117 AD3d 995, 995; see CPLR 3012[d]).

2025Here, O & G failed to present a reasonable excuse for its delay, and we therefore need [*2]not consider whether it demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see id. ; Mannino Dev., Inc. v Linares , 117 AD3d at 995).

2025Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889,890 , 909 NYS2d 403,403 [2d Dept 2010]).

2025Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889,890 , 909 NYS2d 403,403 [2d Dept 2010]).

2015In view of the absence of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether BAC sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Trepel v Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., 99 AD3d at 791 ; Tribeca Lending Corp. v Correa, 92 AD3d at 771 ; Alterbaum v Shubert Org., Inc., 80 AD3d at 636 ).

2015Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Capital Source v AKO Med., P.C., 110 AD3d 1026 , 1026 [2013]; Tribeca Lending Corp. v Correa, 92 AD3d 770 [2012]).

2024As the father did not establish a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not reach the issue of whether he presented a potentially meritorious defense ( see Matter of Proctor-Shields v Shields , 74 AD3d at 1348 ).

2018Since the mother did not have a reasonable excuse for her default, this Court need not determine whether she established that she had a potentially meritorious defense ( see Matter of Johanna B. [Grace B.] , 157 AD3d 668 , 669-670; Matter of Nathalie D.N. [Nathaniel H.N.] , 149 AD3d 750, 751 ; Matter of Proctor-Shields v Shields , 74 AD3d 1347, 1348 ).

2020Servs., Inc. , 80 AD3d 732, 733 ).

2017Servs., Inc., 80 AD3d 732, 733 [2011]; O’Donnell v Frangakis, 76 AD3d 999 , 1000 [2010]).

2021Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine whether defendant [*2]demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Syed , 160 AD3d 914 [2018]; Scott v Ward , 130 AD3d 903 [2015]; Vardaros v Zapas , 105 AD3d 1037 [2013]).

2020In light of that failure, we need not address whether the defendants established the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Vardaros v Zapas , 105 AD3d 1037, 1038 ; Bitzios v Michelakis , 89 AD3d at 781 ).