Opinion
2017–11649 Index No. 15190/13
03-20-2019
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., etc., Respondent, v. Kristin M. ROSS, etc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
David A. Bythewood, Mineola, NY, for appellant. Blank Rome LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Robbin and Jacquelyn A. DiCicco of counsel), and Leopold & Associates, PLLC, Armonk, N.Y. (Saul Leopold of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).
David A. Bythewood, Mineola, NY, for appellant.
Blank Rome LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Robbin and Jacquelyn A. DiCicco of counsel), and Leopold & Associates, PLLC, Armonk, N.Y. (Saul Leopold of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order dated August 23, 2017, is affirmed, with costs.
In this action to foreclose a mortgage, an order of reference dated July 18, 2016, was entered upon the failure of the defendant Kristin M. Ross (hereinafter the defendant) to appear or answer the complaint. The defendant thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate the order of reference, based upon the alleged "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct" of the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff submitted fraudulent documents in support of its motion for an order of reference, i.e., that the plaintiff obtained the underlying order through "intrinsic fraud" ( U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters , 127 A.D.3d 742, 9 N.Y.S.3d 58 ), rather than through "extrinsic fraud."
To prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) where intrinsic fraud is alleged, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Coletta , 153 A.D.3d 756, 757, 59 N.Y.S.3d 788 ; EMC Mtge. Corp. v. Asturizaga , 150 A.D.3d 824, 826, 55 N.Y.S.3d 66 ; LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Oberstein , 146 A.D.3d 945, 45 N.Y.S.3d 538 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters , 127 A.D.3d at 742–743, 9 N.Y.S.3d 58 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Lagakos , 27 A.D.3d 678, 679, 810 N.Y.S.2d 923 ). Here, since the defendant failed to offer any excuse for her default, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate her default (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Coletta , 153 A.D.3d at 757, 59 N.Y.S.3d 788 ; EMC Mtge. Corp. v. Toussaint , 136 A.D.3d 861, 863, 25 N.Y.S.3d 312 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Peters , 127 A.D.3d at 743, 9 N.Y.S.3d 58 ).
As to the defendant's additional contention, that the plaintiff lacked standing, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the issue had been waived by the defendant's failure to raise it in a pre-answer motion to dismiss, or to serve an answer to the complaint asserting lack of standing as an affirmative defense (see U.S. Bank National Association v. Nelson , 168 A.D.3d 1268 [2d Dept. 2019] ; American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v. Arklis , 150 A.D.3d 1180, 1181–1182, 56 N.Y.S.3d 332 ; JP Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v. Hayles , 113 A.D.3d 821, 822, 979 N.Y.S.2d 620 ; Citibank, N.A. v. Swiatkowski , 98 A.D.3d 555, 556, 949 N.Y.S.2d 635 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.