Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oppitz

182 A.D.3d 746

122 N.Y.S.3d 401

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent,

v.Randall OPPITZ, Also Known as Randall M. Oppitz, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

528139

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: February 13, 2020

Decided and Entered: April 9, 2020

Randall Oppitz, Warrensburg, appellant pro se.

Reed Smith, LLP, New York City (James Faller of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.

In September 2014, plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, defendant Randall Oppitz (hereinafter defendant). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which defendant did not oppose. In February 2017, Supreme Court awarded plaintiff summary judgment, striking defendant's answer. A judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered in June 2017, which included a provision to sell the premises within 180 days. In October 2017, defendant filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy; said case was dismissed in December 2017. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to extend the time to sell the property. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and for summary judgment. Supreme Court denied defendant's cross motion and granted plaintiff's motion. Defendant appeals.

As the party seeking to vacate a default judgment, defendant had the burden of demonstrating a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense to the action (see Washington Mut. Bank v. Fisette , 66 A.D.3d 1287, 1287, 887 N.Y.S.2d 728 [2009] ). Although defendant alleges various defenses to the action, most notably intrinsic fraud, he failed to produce any excuse for his default. As such, Supreme Court properly denied his cross motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, regardless of whether he asserted a possible meritorious defense to the action (see OneWest Bank, FSB v. Galloway , 148 A.D.3d 818, 819, 49 N.Y.S.3d 484 [2017] ). "The absence of a reasonable excuse for the default renders it unnecessary to determine whether the [defendant] demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense" ( Citimortgage, Inc. v. Bustamante , 107 A.D.3d 752, 753, 968 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2013] [citation omitted]; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini , 84 A.D.3d 789, 790, 921 N.Y.S.2d 643 [2011] ).

Supreme Court also correctly granted plaintiff's motion to extend the time to sell the property. Although, in opposing said motion, defendant argued both that he did not sign the note and did not intend to sign the note, the fact remains that, in his answer to the complaint, he admitted to signing the note. " ‘Facts admitted in a party's pleadings constitute formal judicial admissions, and are conclusive of the facts admitted in the action in which they are made’ " ( Kimso Apts., LLC v. Gandhi , 24 N.Y.3d 403, 412, 998 N.Y.S.2d 740, 23 N.E.3d 1008 [2014], quoting GMS Batching, Inc. v. TADCO Constr. Corp. , 120 A.D.3d 549, 551, 992 N.Y.S.2d 264 [2014] ). Moreover, this is a defense to the action that should have been raised in opposition to plaintiff's motion for...