Bank of New York v. Trujillo
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the CertificateHolders of the CWABS 2005-1, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. NO. A-1-CA-37158 8 GREG M. TRUJILLO, a/k/a 9 GREGORY M. TRUJILLO, 10 Defendant-Appellant, 11 and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS; TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (IRS), Defendants. 19 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY 20 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge 21 Doherty & Silva, LLC 22 Lucinda R. Silva 1 Albuquerque, NM 2 for Appellee 3 The Law Offie of Erika E. Anderson 4 Erika Anderson 5 Albuquerque, NM 6 for Appellant 7 MEMORANDUM OPINION 8 VIGIL, Judge. 9 {1} Defendant Greg M. Trujillo has appealed from the district court’s order denying 10 his timely [RP 196, 208] motion to reconsider and denying his motions for an 11 extension of time and to stay the judgment. Unpersuaded that Defendant established 12 error in the district court’s rulings, we issued a notice of proposed summary 13 disposition, proposing to affirm. Plaintiff Bank of New York has responded to our 14 notice with a memorandum in support. Defendant has not responded to our notice and 15 the time for doing so has expired. See Rule 12-210(D)(2) NMRA (“The parties shall 16 have twenty (20) days from the date of service of the notice of proposed disposition 17 to file and serve a memorandum in opposition.”). The “[f]ailure to file a memorandum 18 in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar 19 notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287. 2 1 {2} For the reasons set forth in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order 2 denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider and denying his motions for extension of 3 time and to stay the judgment. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 _______________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8 _____________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 10 _____________________________ 11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
