Court Opinion

ID: 9954311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:08.096461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:01.258345
License: Public Domain

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Kleyman
               2024 NY Slip Op 30937(U)
                     March 19, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 524203/2019
               Judge: Cenceria P. Edwards
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:39 PM                                                              INDEX NO. 524203/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                                                                                     At an IAS Term, Part FRP1 of the Supreme
                                                                                     Court of the State of New York, held in and
                                                                                     for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at
                                                                                     360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on
                                                                                     the 5th day of July, 2022.

            P R E S E N T:
            HON. CENCERIA P. EDWARDS, CPA
                                       Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------X              ORDER
            HSBC BANK USA, N.A.,
                                                         Plaintiff(s),                          Calendar #(s):          21
                                                                                                Index #:          524203/2019
                             -against-
                                                                                                Mot. Seq. #(s):         1
            GALINA       KLEYMAN;      AMERICAN      EXPRESS
            NATIONAL BANK; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
            OF FINANCE PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU,
            "JOHN DOE" AND "JOHN DOE" #1-10 SAID NAMES BEING
            FICTITIOUS, IT BEING THE INTENTION OF PLAINTIFF, TO
            DESIGNATE ANY AND ALL OCCUPANTS OR PREMISES BEING
            FORECLOSED HEREIN,

                                                         Defendant(s).
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following papers read herein:                                                       NYSCEF Doc. Nos.:

            Notice of Motion, Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits    ______22-34_______
            Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits             ______40-45_______
            Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits                __________________
            ______________________________________________________________________________

                    Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (“Plaintiff”), commenced this foreclosure action by

            summons and complaint on November 5, 2019, against defendant Galina Kleyman (“Defendant”)

            and others, to foreclose a mortgage encumbering residential real property located at 2263 Mill

            Avenue Brooklyn, New York.

                    Defendant in this instant motion, filed on or about February 17, 2020, seeks to vacate its

            default in answering the complaint and asserts it did not receive the summons and complaint in

                                                                 1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:39 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 524203/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            time to answer (CPLR 317) and it has a reasonable excuse for failure to answer the complaint

            (CPLR 5015(a)(1)) along with a potentially meritorious defense, and Plaintiff lacks standing to

            commence and/or maintain this action.

                   According to Plaintiff’s opposition papers it timely refused to accept Defendant’s late

            answer (filed January 28, 2020) in its rejection letter (dated January 31, 2020) as Defendant’s time

            to answer expired on January 21, 2020, and Plaintiff did not stipulate to extend the time to answer

            nor did the Court.

                   Generally, a defendant who seeks to vacate its default in answering a complaint must

            demonstrate either that there was no default (CPLR 5015(a)(4)) or provide a reasonable excuse for

            the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (CPLR 5015(a)(1) or establish they

            did not receive notice of the action in time to defend and a potentially meritorious defense to the

            action (CPLR 317). Ng v. Asquared Group, Inc., 219 A.D.3d 1341, 1342 [2d Dept 2023]. However,

            the sufficiency of an excuse is not as significant where the default is only a short time span. P &

            H Painting v Flintlock 179 AD3d 1086 [2d Dept 2019].

                   The trial or hearing judge is afforded discretion in determining whether a litigant has

            proffered a reasonable excuse [CPLR 5015(a)(1)] or established a lack of notice [CPLR 317] or

            whether to vacate a default for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice. Woodson

            v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62 [2003]. A court’s inherent power to vacate a default,

            although discretionary, is limited and narrow in scope and should be resorted to only to relieve a

            party for “sufficient reason and in the interests of justice” "from judgments taken through fraud,

            mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Wells Fargo v. Choo, 159 AD3d 938, 742

            [2d Dept 2018].

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:39 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 524203/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                   Specifically, the factors a judge is to consider in weighing a litigant’s excusable default

            include whether the litigant’s default was willful, lengthy delay, harm or prejudice caused to the

            opposing party along with the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on their merit rather

            than default. Lai v. Montes, 182 AD3d 646, 648 [3d Dept 2020]. Where the delay in seeking to

            vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) is brief the “sufficiency” of an excuse is not as

            important. Pizzarotti, LLC v. CabGram Dev., LLC, 219 A3d 1352 [2d Dept 2023].

                   What constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial or hearing

            judge determining the motion. Wade v. Cojab, 219 AD3d 668, 669 [2d Dept 2023].

                   Herein, the Court finds Defendant’s brief delay of seven (7) days, in answering the

            complaint as detailed in Plaintiff’s opposition paper, de minimis, and Defendant’s motion to vacate

            its default within 30 days of Plaintiff’s rejection letter corroborates Defendant’s delay was not

            willful. Specifically, Defendant’s time to answer expired on January 21, 2020, Defendant served

            its answer on January 28, 2020, which Plaintiff rejected on January 31, 2020. Immediately

            thereafter, Defendant filed the instant Order to Show Cause to vacate its default in answering on

            February 17, 2020, with its affidavit in support dated February 12, 2020.

                   Additionally, this Court notes that Defendant proffered a reasonable excuse as she argued

            that she learned of the action for the first time on January 8, 2020, when the court notified her to

            appear at a court settlement conference. Subsequently, she retained a lawyer immediately with

            her lawyer serving an answer on January 28, 2020, seven (7) days after her time to answer expired.

                   Given the totality of all relevant factors, including Defendant’s very short delay in

            answering the complaint, their delay not being willful, Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate it suffered

            any prejudice, Defendant’s submission of a potentially meritorious defense (which the Plaintiff

            did not contest) along with a strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits,

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:39 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 524203/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            and for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial of justice, Defendant’s request to vacate

            its default in answering, for leave to file and compel Plaintiff’s acceptance of its late answer, is

            GRANTED (see Bansi v. Nugacon Bldg. Servs., LLC, 218 A.D.3d 723 [2nd Dept 2023]; . CPLR

            2004, 3012(d)).

                    Accordingly,

                    It is ORDERED that Defendant’s Verified Answer is deemed filed and served nunc pro

            tunc.

                    It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear before FRP1 room 756 on May

            1, 2024, for a status conference.

                    The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

                                                                    E N T E R:

            Dated: March 19, 2024
                                                                             ~
                                                                  ________________________________
                                                                  Hon. Cenceria P. Edwards, JSC, CPA

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]