You are here: / / SUPREME COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE...
,

SUPREME COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BECAUSE A 90-DAY NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN SERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should not have been dismissed for failure to prosecute because a 90-day notice had not been served:

In April 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Melchior Sansone (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage secured by certain real property located in Suffolk County. In January 2011, following settlement conferences, the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part without any resolution. On July 20, 2012, the parties appeared at a compliance conference, at which time the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to resume the prosecution of this action. By order dated November 21, 2012 (hereinafter the dismissal order), the court directed dismissal of the action upon the plaintiff’s failure to resume prosecution of the action. The plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the dismissal order, and, in effect, to restore the action to the active calendar. By order dated July 30, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . These conditions include, among others, service of a written demand “requiring the party against whom such relief is sought to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand” (CPLR 3216[b][3] …). Here, the Supreme Court was without power to direct dismissal of the action on the ground of failure to prosecute because the plaintiff was not served with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Sansone, 2019 NY Slip Op 07807, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

You might also like
AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE ACTION, WHICH STEMMED FROM PLAINTIFF’S BEING DROPPED IN THE DELIVERY ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
AWARDING WIFE A DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF HUSBAND’S MEDICAL PRACTICE AND DETERMINING HUSBAND’S MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION BASED UPON INCOME FROM THE PRACTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE-COUNTING.
PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED THE RESIDENCE AS HAVING TWO ENTRANCE DOORS, ONE LEADING TO THE AREA WHERE THE INFORMANT SAW THE FIREARMS AND ONE LEADING TO A STAIRWAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR (WHICH THE INFORMANT HAD NOT VISITED), THE WARRANT WAS NOT SEVERABLE AND WAS THEREFORE OVERBROAD (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE OWNER, HERE A CAR DEALERSHIP, IS USUALLY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY A DRIVER OPERATING THE VEHICLE WITH THE OWNER’S PERMISSION, HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER, WHO WAS TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE, EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE PERMISSION (SECOND DEPT).
THE FEDERAL CRIME WHICH WAS USED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION VACATED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304... PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND...