What did the court decide?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the appellant was not an aggrieved party and therefore had no standing to appeal orders entered after he failed to appear in the lawsuit.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects Jacob Adekola (the appellant) and upholds the lower court's foreclosure-related orders in favor of Deutsche Bank, because the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing.

Does this resolve the foreclosure against the property?

Yes — because the appeal was dismissed, the Supreme Court's orders confirming the referee's report and granting judgment of foreclosure and sale stand and may be enforced.

Can this dismissal be challenged further?

The decision notes dismissal for lack of standing; further review would typically require demonstrating a basis to reopen the default or a jurisdictional ground to proceed, so the appellant should consult counsel about potential motions in Supreme Court or extraordinary relief.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Adekola

Docket Index No. 380894/10|Appeal No. 6447|Case No. 2025-03923|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02448
Docket numbers: Index No380894/10Appeal No6447Case No2025-03923

Appeal from order and judgment in a foreclosure action confirming a referee's report and granting a judgment of foreclosure and sale following a default judgment and order of reference.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department dismissed Jacob Adekola’s appeal from Supreme Court orders that granted Deutsche Bank’s motions for a default judgment, an order of reference, confirmation of a referee’s report, and a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court held Adekola lacked standing to appeal because he failed to appear in the underlying action before filing his notice of appeal and therefore was not an aggrieved party. Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing, the panel did not reach the merits of Adekola’s arguments for relief.

Issues Decided

Whether the appellant was an aggrieved party with standing to appeal the Supreme Court's grant of plaintiff's motions after failing to appear in the action before filing the notice of appeal.
Whether a defendant who did not oppose a motion for default judgment and order of reference can appeal the resulting orders.

Court's Reasoning

Under CPLR 5511 and controlling First Department precedent, only an aggrieved party may appeal an order. Because Adekola did not appear in the action and failed to oppose the plaintiff’s motions for a default judgment, order of reference, and confirmation, he cannot be considered aggrieved by those rulings. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and declined to consider the appellant’s substantive arguments.

Authorities Cited

CPLR 5511
Figiel v Met Food48 AD3d 330 (1st Dept 2008)
Leader v Parkside Group159 AD3d 523 (1st Dept 2018)

Parties

Plaintiff: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Defendant: Jacob Adekola
Defendant: Victoria Falae
Attorney: Earl M. Williams (Law Office of Earl Williams) - for appellant
Attorney: Joseph F. Battista (Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC) - for respondent
Judge: Naita A. Semaj (Supreme Court, Bronx County)
Judge: Scarpulla, J.P.
Judge: Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-23
Judgment and order entered (Supreme Court): 2025-03-19
Order granting default judgment and order of reference (Supreme Court): 2017-06-02

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult counsel immediately
The defendant should consult an attorney to evaluate options such as moving in Supreme Court to vacate the default or seeking other post-judgment relief if timeliness and excusable default can be shown.
2
Consider motion to vacate default judgment
If there are viable defenses or excusable default grounds, file a motion in the trial court to vacate the default judgment and order of reference before enforcement proceeds.
3
Prepare for foreclosure enforcement
If relief is not available or is denied, expect the plaintiff to proceed with foreclosure sale and take steps to protect any remaining interests or pursue relocation/financial planning.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the appellant was not an aggrieved party and therefore had no standing to appeal orders entered after he failed to appear in the lawsuit.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects Jacob Adekola (the appellant) and upholds the lower court's foreclosure-related orders in favor of Deutsche Bank, because the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing.
Does this resolve the foreclosure against the property?: Yes — because the appeal was dismissed, the Supreme Court's orders confirming the referee's report and granting judgment of foreclosure and sale stand and may be enforced.
Can this dismissal be challenged further?: The decision notes dismissal for lack of standing; further review would typically require demonstrating a basis to reopen the default or a jurisdictional ground to proceed, so the appellant should consult counsel about potential motions in Supreme Court or extraordinary relief.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Adekola - 2026 NY Slip Op 02448

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Adekola

2026 NY Slip Op 02448

April 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company etc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

Jacob Adekola, etc., Defendant-Appellant, Victoria Falae, et. al., Defendants.

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026

Index No. 380894/10|Appeal No. 6447|Case No. 2025-03923|

Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ.

Law Office of Earl Williams, Mount Vernon (Earl M. Williams of counsel), for appellant.

Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Westbury (Joseph F. Battista of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from order and judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered March 19, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for an order confirming a Referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and denied defendant Olushola Adekola's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 2, 2017, which granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and order of reference, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as defendant-appellant Jacob Adekola is not an aggrieved party with standing to appeal the order.

Appellant failed to appear in this action before he filed the notice of appeal, and therefore did not oppose either the motion for a default judgment and an order of reference or the motion for an order confirming the Referee's report and granting a final judgment of foreclosure and sale (CPLR 5511;
see Figiel v Met Food
, 48 AD3d 330, 330 [1st Dept 2008]). Accordingly, appellant is not aggrieved by Supreme Court's grant of plaintiff's motions, and may not appeal from the resulting order
(CPLR 5511;
Leader v Parkside Group
, 159 AD3d 523, 523 [1st Dept 2018]).

In light of this determination, we need not consider appellant's arguments for affirmative relief.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 23, 2026