Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v Baron

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v Baron 2014 NY Slip Op 02008 Decided on March 26, 2014 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 26, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2012-03888
(Index No. 17080/09)

[*1]Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., respondent,

v

Inez Baron, appellant.




Inez Baron, Lido Beach, N.Y., appellant pro se.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated March 8, 2012, which denied her motion to vacate a prior order of the same court entered November 22, 2011, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order dated March 8, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In order to vacate her default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Donovan v Chiapetta, 72 AD3d 635; Aurora Loan Servs. v Grant, 70 AD3d 986; Political Mktg., Int'l, Inc. v Jaliman, 67 AD3d 661). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for her default or the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion.
DICKERSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court