You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS...
, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREBY DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate the default in this foreclosure action should have been granted. Supreme Court had, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint without affording plaintiff an opportunity to be heard:

Following the plaintiff’s failure to move for an order of reference … , the Court Attorney Referee found … that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for its failure to move for the order of reference as directed and recommended that the action be dismissed. … Supreme Court directed dismissal of the action.

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . As no such extraordinary circumstances were present in this case, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint, without affording the plaintiff notice and opportunity to be heard … , which “amounted to a denial of the plaintiff’s due process rights” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were to vacate the October 4, 2016, order and to restore the action to active status … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Winslow, 2020 NY Slip Op 01325, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER EITHER CPLR 5015 OR 317; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
The Arresting Officer’s Stepping in Front of the Appellant As the Appellant Walked Away Was Not a Seizure But Rather Was a Continuation of the Officer’s Common-Law Right to Inquire
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT-WIFE’S ATTORNEY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION MISSED A COUPLE OF THE 60-DAY BILLING PERIODS, THE ATTORNEY WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) AND THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; $135,315.90 AWARDED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Case Against Non-Debtor Not Entitled to Automatic Stay
IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUESTS, THE TOWN DID NOT CITE ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE IDENTIFIED RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND DID NOT CERTIFY THOSE RECORDS DID NOT EXIST; IN ADDITION THE TOWN DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REDACTIONS IN THE PRODUCED RECORDS; ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
LIABILITY OF MEMBERS OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PRECLUSION OF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES ACTION WHICH DUPLICATE BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS, AND CRITERIA FOR A RICO MAIL FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH.
ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE OF A JOINT TENANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED UPON DEATH, THE ESTATE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE PROPERLY DENIED (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 BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1306; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION... PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HER BICYCLE ON A SIDEWALK WHEN SHE COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANT’S...