Case Name: Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Respondent, v. Ricardo Javier, Appellant, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 153 A.D.3d 1199
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Respondent, v Ricardo Javier, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Oing and Singh, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 1199–1200

Head Matter:
Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Respondent, v Ricardo Javier, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[60 NYS3d 675]

Opinion:
Judgment of foreclosure and sale, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2017, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 31, 2016, which, upon renewal, denied defendant Ricardo Javier's motion to extend the time to answer, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Defendant failed to show both a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious defense to this foreclosure action (see US Bank N.A. v Brown, 147 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2017]). His assertion that he had been "led to believe" (by parties unnamed) that he did not need to answer the complaint because he had submitted a loan modification application is not a reasonable excuse, in view of the clear warning contained in the summons served in this action that failure to respond could result in a default judgment and loss of his home (see id.). Given his failure to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default, we need not determine whether defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see id. at 429-430).
The referee's failure to give notice of the proceedings (see CPLR 4313) to ascertain the amount due on the mortgage does not require reversal of the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Both parties submitted evidence to the court — the ultimate arbiter of the issue — in their motions to confirm or vacate the referee's report, and the court correctly found that defendant's evidence failed to rebut plaintiff's evidence (see Union Chelsea Natl. Bank v Rumican 190 Corp., 257 AD2d 463 [1st Dept 1999], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 93 NY2d 989 [1999]; Adelman v Fremd, 234 AD2d 488 [2d Dept 1996]).
Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Oing and Singh, JJ.