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
THE DEMAND FOR THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT UNDER A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF THE CONTRACT AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF SUED DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS ALLEGING INACCURATE ADVICE CAUSED HER TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, BECAUSE THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ACCRUED WHEN PLAINTIFF FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, THE LAWSUIT BECAME PART OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE AND PLAINTIFF WAS THEREBY STRIPPED OF THE CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS SOUNDED IN FRAUD, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW; ALL WERE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
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).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS AND EXHIBITS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF HE WERE AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO RESTRICT CONTACT WITH THE INCARCERATED FATHER TO TELEPHONE CALLS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (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...