Upon the following papers numbered 1 to8read on this motion for an order of reference upon default; Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1 - 5; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 6; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers7-8; Other; (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is,

ORDERED that this motion (#001) by plaintiff for an order of reference upon the default of all defendants in answering and other incidental relief is considered under CPLR 3215(f), RPAPL § 1321 and CPLR 5015 and is granted. [*2]

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage in the original amount of $559,200.00 on residential real property located in Manorville, New York given by defendant Keith Mauer to a predecessor in interest of the plaintiff. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on October 1, 2009, defendant Keith Mauer defaulted in making payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage that are the subject of this action. The plaintiff commenced this action thereafter on July 6, 2010.

The record reflects that subsequent to the filing of the summons and complaint and the proofs of service in July of 2010, the court notified defendant Keith Mauer that a settlement conference of the type required by CPLR 3404 was scheduled in the specialized mortgage foreclosure part of this court for October 12, 2010. Following the defendant's default in appearing thereat, the action was assigned to this court.

The plaintiff now moves for the following relief: 1) an order fixing the defaults in answering of all named defendants and the default of Adina Mauer, who was named herein as defendant John Doe #1; 2) amending the caption to reflect the name of the plaintiff as Bank of America, NA, the successor by merger to the named plaintiff; 3) an order identifying and substituting Adina Mauer in the place of John Doe #1, an amendment of the caption to reflect same and an order amending the caption to delete the remaining unknown defendants; and 4) an order appointing a referee to compute amounts due under the note and mortgage. On the May 5, 2010 return date of the motion, defendants Keith Mauer and Adina Mauer appeared herein by counsel via a notice of appearance faxed to chambers. The motion was then adjourned by stipulation of counsel to May 25, 2012 and again to June 29, 2012. Opposing papers were received by the court from the Mauer defendants in response to which the plaintiff served reply papers. The opposing papers reference that a proposed answer is attached thereto as Exhibit A but no such answer is so attached to the opposing papers submitted by the Mauer defendants. The motion was marked submitted for determination by this court on the last agreed upon adjourn date of June 29, 2012.

The moving papers of the plaintiff include due proof of service of the summons and complaint and of all notices required by the recent statutory enactments aimed at advising defendant mortgagors of the gravity of the relief the plaintiff is seeking in this foreclosure action (see CPLR 1320; 1303 and 1304). The moving papers also established facts constituting cognizable claims against Keith Mauer and the other defendants joined herein, as they included due proof of the execution of the note and mortgage by defendant Keith Mauer, and a default in payment under the terms thereof. The moving papers further established "sufficient cause" for the plaintiff's delay in moving for default judgment as required by CPLR 3215(c). That cause includes the delay necessarily engendered by the conference requirements of CPLR 3408; the "stay"of all motions set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.12-a (4)(7); and the delay in complying with Administrative Order numbered 548—10 , supplanted by Administrative Order 431/11,which this court found to be ultra viries in LaSalle Bank, NA v Pace, reported at 31 Misc 3d 627, 919 NYS2d 794 [2011]). The plaintiff thus satisfied all requirements imposed upon the granting of an application for a default judgment that are imposed by CPLR 3215(f) with the exception of the "amount due" requirement, which shall be the subject of the reference to compute a long account as contemplated by RPAPL§ [*3]1321and CPLR 4317.^[FN1]

The opposing papers consist of an affirmation by counsel for the Mauer defendants. Therein, counsel asserts that prior to the commencement of this action, both Mauer defendants submitted an application to the plaintiff or its agents in an attempt to obtain a modification of the 2005 mortgage loan defendant Keith Mauer had secured from GMAC Mortgage Corporation, the original lender. Counsel further asserts that promises were made by unidentified agents of the plaintiff as to the issuance of a loan modification approval coupled with a discontinuance of this action and other purported representations regarding non-appearances on conference dates. Counsel insinuates that the due to financial hardship and the absence of retained counsel, the defendants are entitled to be relieved of their defaults. Although counsel concludes with a request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion and accept the proposed answer which is not attached to the opposing papers, no notice of cross motion demanding affirmative relief in favor of the defendants was submitted by the Mauer defendants.

For the reasons set forth below, these assertions are insufficient to overcome the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief requested on this motion.

" A defendant who has failed to appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action to avoid the entering of a default judgment or to extend the time to answer'" (Mellon v Izmirligil, 88 AD3d 930, 931 NYS2d 667 [2d Dept 2011], quoting, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, 921 NYS2d 643 [2d Dept 2011]; see Equicredit Corp. of Am. v Campbell, 73 AD3d 1119, 1120, 900 NYS2d 907 [2d Dept 2010]; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890, 909 NYS2d 403 [2d Dept 2010]; Nasca v Town of Brookhaven, 4 AD3d 462, 462, 771 NYS2d 686 [2d Dept 2004]). Affirmative relief to a defaulting defendant in the form of leave to serve a late answer or to extend the time to answer may not issue in the absence of a duly served notice of motion or cross motion for such relief and a showing of a reasonable excuse and potentially meritorious defense to the claim or action (see CPLR 3012[d]; Pampalone v Giant Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., 17 AD3d 556, 793 NYS2d 462 [2d Dept 2005]; Blam v Netcher, 17 AD3d 495, 793 NYS2d 464 [2d Dept 2005]). [*4]

Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their defaults in answering or that they possess any meritorious defense to the claims interposed in this action against. The hearsay allegation of counsel regarding purported settlement negotiations and claims of executory promises regarding a possible loan modification are wholly unavailing (see Mellon v Izmirligil, 88 AD3d 930, 931 NYS2d 667 [2d Dept 2011]; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949, 950, 871 NYS2d 303 [2d Dept 2008]; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d at 306, 812 NYS2d 557 [2d Dept 2008]). In addition, recent appellate case authorities have instructed that confusion or ignorance of the law, legal processes and/or court procedures do not constitute reasonable excuses for the failure to answer or otherwise appear (see Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v Raven Brands, Inc., 82 AD3d 1041, 919 NYS2d 358 [2d Dept 2011]; US Bank Natl. Assoc. v Slavinski, 78 AD3d 1167, 912 NYS2d 285 [2d Dept 2010]; Yao Ping Tang v Grand Estate, LLC., 77 AD3d 822, 910 NYS2d 104 [2d Dept 2010]; Dorrer v Berry, 37 AD3d 519, 830 NYS2d 277 [2d Dept 2007]; Awad v Severino, 122 AD2d 242, 505 NYS2d 437 [2d Dept. 1986]).

It has also been held that where statutorily mandated special notices, expressly warning of the gravity of the subject matter of a foreclosure action and of the consequences in failing to timely answer a summons and complaint in accordance with directives set forth therein, are served upon a defendant, conclusory claims that he or she was unaware of the necessity for service of a timely answer have been held not to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default (see RPAPL §1320; Bank of New York v Jayaswal, 33 Misc 3d 1214(A), 2011 WL 5061626 [Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 2011]). The record in this action reflects that the summons served by the plaintiff contained the following warning mandated by the provisions of RPAPL §1320:

If you do not respond to this summons and complaint by serving a copy of the answer on the attorney for the mortgage company who filed this foreclosure proceeding against you and filing the answer with the court, a default judgment may be entered and you can loose your home.

Speak to an Attorney or go to the court where your case is pending for further information on how to answer the summons and complaint and protect your property.

Sending payment to your mortgage company will not stop this foreclosure action.

YOU MUST RESPOND BY SERVING A COPY OF THE ANSWER ON THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF (MORTGAGE COMPANY) AND FILING THE ANSWER WITH THE COURT.

The Mauer defendants have not denied, in a sworn statement or otherwise, receipt of the plaintiff's summons which contained the above quoted statutory notice. Under these circumstances, the court finds that defendants Mauer failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default. The failure to establish a reasonable excuse for their default renders an inquiry into whether the Mauer defendants have any meritorious defenses academic (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789, supra). In any event, the record is devoid of any evidence that assesses any meritorious defense to the plaintiff's demands for foreclosure of sale [*5]

In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion (#001) for an order of reference on default in is in all respects granted. The proposed order of reference attached to the moving papers, as modified by the court, has been signed simultaneously herewith.

DATED: __________________________________________________

THOMAS F. WHELAN, J.S.C.