Legal Opinion
Fremont Investment & Loan v. Bertram
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 27, 2011PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against him upon his default in appearing or answering. 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]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Brown, 83 AD3d 644, 645 [2011]; Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 AD3d 628 [2010]). Here, the defendant failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Development Strategies Co. v. Astoria Equities, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Citimortgage, Inc. v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wells Fargo Bank v. MalaveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. AlbaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- EMC Mortgage Corp. v. LambAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Matter of Crai v. CraiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. ConwayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.