You are here: / / FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT...
,

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint as time-barred should have been denied. The first foreclosure action was started in 2007. The defendant’s default did not automatically accelerate the debt because the language in the note and mortgage made acceleration optional. Although the 2007 complaint sought to accelerate the debt, the complaint was dismissed for lack of standing and therefore could not be relied upon as evidence the debt was accelerated. The Second Department also considered, and found valid, an argument raised below but not considered by Supreme Court, i.e., the current action was started within six months of the dismissal of the 2007 action and was therefore timely pursuant to CPLR 205 [a]. This rationale was deemed applicable even though the parties which commenced to two actions were not technically the same:

… [I]nasmuch as the acceleration provisions in the note and mortgage were made optional at the discretion of the holder and were not automatically triggered upon Rose Gordon’s default (see generally 1-4 Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 4.03[2017]), the allegation in the 2007 complaint that Rose Gordon defaulted on March 1, 2007, did not constitute evidence that the mortgage was accelerated on that date … . * * *

… [T]he prior plaintiff in the 2007 action did not have standing to commence that action because it was not the holder of the note and mortgage at the time that the 2007 action was commenced. Accordingly, service of the 2007 complaint was ineffective to constitute a valid exercise of the option to accelerate the debt, since the prior plaintiff did not have the authority to accelerate the debt or to sue to foreclose at that time … .

Although, as a general matter, only the plaintiff in the original action is entitled to the benefits of CPLR 205(a), the Court of Appeals has nevertheless recognized an exception to this general rule under certain circumstances where the plaintiff in the new action is seeking to enforce “the rights of the plaintiff in the original action”… . More specifically to the facts here, this Court has recently held that “a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action which meets all of the other requirements of the statute is entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a) where . . . it is the successor in interest as the current holder of the note”… .

Here, even assuming that there were no questions of fact as to whether the plaintiffs in the 2007 and 2013 actions were legally distinct entities, the plaintiff in this action is entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a). As the assignee and subsequent holder of the note and mortgage, the plaintiff in the 2013 action had a statutory right, pursuant to CPLR 1018, to continue the 2007 action in the place of the prior plaintiff once the assignment occurred in 2009, even in the absence of a formal substitution … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Gordon, 2018 NY Slip Op 01349, Second Dept 2-28-18

FORECLOSURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 205[a]  (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Plaintiff’s Own Negligence Broke Any Causal Chain Between Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Injury
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Six-Year Statute of Limitations for Reformation of Deed Exceeded, No Evidence the Exception to the Statute Applied
Even Employees “Working Off the Books” Are Barred from Suing Employer in Tort
Probation Department’s Unauthorized Taking of DNA Evidence Required Suppression/Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Applied to Deny Suppression of Identification Evidence and Defendant’s Statement
Some of the Requirements for the Application of Attorney Work-Product and Trial-Preparation Privileges Explained
Restrictive Covenant Was Part of a Common Development Scheme and Was Enforceable by All Property Owners In the Subdivision
ALTHOUGH THE BACKHOE WHICH COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN USED FOR ROADWORK THAT DAY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE BACKHOE WAS BEING USED TO TRANSPORT GRAVEL TO THE WORK SITE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE BACKHOE WAS NOT “ACTIVELY ENGAGED” IN ROADWORK AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD FOR LIABILITY IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN... EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY...