You are here: / / CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE...
,

CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the conditional order requiring that a note of issue or motion be filed by plaintiff bank within ninety days did not meet the requirements of a notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Therefore the administrative dismissal of the foreclosure action was invalid:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . As relevant here, an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought' in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . While a conditional order of dismissal may have “the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order here “was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion' by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Moreover, the conditional order failed to satisfy the notice requirement on the additional ground that there was “no indication that the plaintiff's counsel was present at the status conference at which the court issued the conditional order of dismissal,” nor was there “evidence that the order was ever properly served upon the plaintiff” … . In the absence of proper notice, “the court was without power to dismiss the action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the conditional order of dismissal” … . Lastly, the Supreme Court erred in administratively dismissing the action without further notice to the parties and without benefit of further judicial review … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bastelli, 2018 NY Slip Op 05822, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL FORECLOSURE, CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Contract Giving Plaintiff Option to Sell the Property Back to the Defendants If Rezoning Not Obtained Was Ambiguous About When the Option Must Be Exercised Raising a Question of Fact About the Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Exercise of the Option
APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO CLAIMANT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Alleging a Deed Executed Within the Ten-Year Statute of Limitations for Adverse Possession Is Void Creates a Presumption of Possession by the Plaintiff Within the Ten-Year Period
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE, THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY OR IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SECOND DEPT).
No Notice of Defect Needed Where Municipality Affirmatively Created It.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL BEFORE ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO RECORDINGS (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

ORDER FOLLOWING GRANT OF A MOTION TO REARGUE IS APPEALABLE, APPEAL HEARD EVEN... HOMEOWNER’S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER’S ESTATE,...