I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219

The following papers were considered on Plaintiff's motion for default judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3215, an order of reference pursuant to RPAPL § 1321, amendment of the caption, reformation of the mortgage's legal description, and related relief:

1. Notice of Motion dated June 12, 2025, Affirmation of Benjamin Casolaro, Esq., with supporting exhibits including Affidavit of Robert Harrell. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 22-36).

2. Affirmation of Mailing dated June 12, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 37).

3. Stipulation of Extension executed July 16, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 42).

4. Affirmation in Opposition of Jiyuan Zhang, Esq., with Affidavits of Defendants Cen and Rong, sworn August 22, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 45-47).

5. Affirmation in Reply of Henry P. DiStefano, Esq. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 48).

6. All prior proceedings herein.

II. Facts

Plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action on March 13, 2025, seeking to enforce a note executed in the principal sum of $843,750.00. The mortgage, dated November 14, 2018 and duly recorded December 4, 2018, was subsequently assigned to Plaintiff on November 12, 2024, recorded October 31, 2024. Plaintiff has produced the note, mortgage, assignment, notice of default, and evidence of standing, establishing its entitlement to foreclose.

Defendants were properly served with the summons and complaint in March and April 2025, and further service was made by mail pursuant to CPLR § 3215 [g]. Affidavits of service and RPAPL § 1303 notices are in the record. Despite this, Defendants failed to answer, appear, or otherwise avail themselves of the judicial process within the prescribed time. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment, order of reference, amendment of the caption to add tenant Bipei Chen, and reformation of the mortgage's legal description.

In opposition, Defendants Cen and Rong acknowledge their default, but offer vague claims of attempted negotiations and a failed sale in May 2023, together with an alleged good-faith effort to resolve tax liens. Only after Plaintiff sought default judgment did Defendants retain counsel, who now requests leave to file a late answer under CPLR § 3012 [d].

III. Conclusions of Law

Plaintiff has amply satisfied the statutory predicates of CPLR § 3215 by demonstrating proof of service, Defendants' default, and the facts constituting the claim. The moving papers establish Plaintiff's standing and entitlement to foreclose. Absent an answer or timely opposition, default judgment is appropriate.

Defendants' proffered excuse for their default is unconvincing. Their alleged reliance on informal communications with the lender does not absolve them of the duty to respond to a summons and complaint duly served. The excuse is belated, unsupported by documentary corroboration, and belies the fact that Defendants sat idle for months while Plaintiff pursued foreclosure. Good faith cannot be invoked as a shield against procedural neglect.

Equally fatal is Defendants' failure to articulate a meritorious defense. They do not challenge the validity of the note, mortgage, or assignment, nor do they contest Plaintiff's standing. Their invocation of "equitable considerations" and vague aspirations to resolve the debt through a future sale is wholly insufficient. Equity aids the vigilant, not those who disregard the clear mandates of the CPLR. Courts have long held that vague promises of payment or settlement do not rise to the level of a substantive defense. What Defendants offer is no defense at all, but a plea for indulgence.

This Court is not persuaded. Mortgage foreclosure is an equitable action, but equity does not reward indolence or neglect. Defendants had ample opportunity to protect their interests and failed to do so. Their belated effort, undertaken only after default was sought, cannot undo months of [*2]disregard. Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with all statutory conditions precedent and is entitled to the relief sought.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion is granted in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that the defaults of all non-appearing and non-answering Defendants, including but not limited to Cen and Rong, are hereby fixed and noted; and it is further

ORDERED, that the caption is amended to substitute Bipei Chen for "John Doe" and "Jane Doe"; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Mortgage dated November 14, 2018 and recorded December 4, 2018 at Land Doc 722266 in the Richmond County Clerk's Office is reformed to include the complete legal description as set forth in Schedule A annexed to Plaintiff's moving papers; and it is further

ORDERED, that a Referee shall be appointed pursuant to RPAPL § 1321 to compute the amount due to Plaintiff and to examine whether the mortgaged premises may be sold in parcels; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall settle an Order of Reference consistent with this Decision, on notice.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.