Majority
In order to prevail on his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered, in part, upon his default, the defendant William Weinberg was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing or answering the complaint and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 , 141 [1986]; Cohen v Romanoff, 83 AD3d 989 [2011]). Weinberg proffered an excuse for his failure to oppose the motion for the execution of a judgment of foreclosure and sale, but not for his failure to appear or answer the complaint in the first instance (see Lane v Smith, 84 AD3d 746 , 748 [2011]; Maida v Lessing’s Rest. Servs., Inc., 80 AD3d 732 , 733 [2011]; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889 , 890 [2010]; Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d 707 , 709 [2010]; Trotman v Aya Cab Corp., 300 AD2d 573 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently
Weinberg’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Skelos, J.R, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31439 (U).]
Cases cited
- Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co. 67 NY2d 138 at 141 p. 879
- Cohen v. Romanoff 83 AD3d 989 p. 879
- Maida v. Lessing's Restaurant Services, Inc. 80 AD3d 732 at 733 p. 879
- Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. McGown 77 AD3d 889 at 890 p. 879
- Segovia v. Delcon Construction Corp. 43 AD3d 1143 at 1144 p. 880
- Mjahdi v. Maguire 21 AD3d 1067 at 1068 p. 880