A New York appellate court has upheld a lower court's ruling to grant a foreclosure and sale judgment against Helena Laurino. The decision, made on October 29, 2026, affects Laurino and her real property in Ulster County, which was mortgaged to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal standards for vacating default judgments and confirming referee reports in foreclosure cases.

The case, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Laurino, CV-25-0922, originated when Laurino executed a mortgage note in 2011 with JP Morgan Chase Bank. In 2019, Chase Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against her, citing defaults in repayment. Laurino did not respond to the allegations, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of Chase Bank, leading to the appointment of a referee to calculate the amounts owed.

In 2020, the mortgage was assigned to Wilmington Savings Fund Society. After the referee calculated the amount due in 2022, the plaintiff moved for confirmation of the report and a judgment of foreclosure. Laurino, who changed legal representation in 2024, sought to vacate the earlier judgment and opposed the confirmation of the referee's report. However, the court found her reasons insufficient.

The appellate court's ruling confirmed the lower court's decision, stating, "Defendant failed to demonstrate why vacatur was warranted and granted plaintiff's motion, confirming the referee's report and ordering a judgment of foreclosure and sale." The judges involved in the decision included Clark, J.P., Ceresia, McShan, Powers, and Ryba.

In its ruling, the court emphasized that Laurino did not provide a reasonable excuse for her default. The court stated, "A conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse." Laurino's assertion that her previous attorneys failed to inform her about the summary judgment motion was deemed insufficient, as it lacked supporting evidence.

The court also noted that Laurino's motion to vacate the 2019 order was filed nearly five years after the original judgment, which raised concerns about potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the order were vacated at such a late stage. The court determined that Laurino's claims did not rise above mere neglect and reiterated that the burden of proof lay with her to demonstrate a valid reason for her default.

Additionally, the court affirmed the confirmation of the referee's report, stating, "The report of a referee should be confirmed if the findings therein are supported by the record." Laurino's arguments against the report were rejected, as the court found that the referee's findings were adequately supported by the evidence presented.

This ruling has implications for future foreclosure cases in New York, particularly regarding the standards for vacating default judgments and the confirmation of referee reports. It reinforces the importance of timely and substantiated responses in foreclosure proceedings, which can significantly impact the outcome for defendants.

Going forward, Laurino may still have options for appeal, though the appellate court has affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court's decision sets a precedent for similar cases where defendants seek to challenge foreclosure judgments based on claims of attorney neglect or procedural issues.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Laurino plans to appeal further or if there are related cases pending.