You are here: / / ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTER AN ‘INFORMAL APPEARANCE’ IN...
,

ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTER AN ‘INFORMAL APPEARANCE’ IN AN ACTION WHICH WILL AVOID A DEFAULT, THE APPEARANCE MUST BE MADE WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMITS; THE PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed the default judgment granted to plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action. The court rejected the argument that defendant (Hall) had entered a valid “Informal appearance:”

It is true that “[i]n addition to the formal appearances listed in CPLR 320(a), the law continues to recognize the so-called informal’ appearance” … . “It comes about when the defendant, although not having taken any of the steps that would officially constitute an appearance under CPLR 320(a), nevertheless participates in the case in some way relating to the merits” … .

Although “an informal appearance can prevent a finding that the defendant is in default, thereby precluding entry of a default judgment” … , this is only true when the participation constituting the informal appearance occurred within the time limitations imposed for making a formal appearance … . Indeed, even service of a formal “notice of appearance will not protect the defendant from entry of a default judgment if, after service of the complaint, the defendant does not timely make a CPLR 3211 motion or serve an answer” … . Accordingly, an informal appearance, without more, does not somehow absolve a defendant from complying with the time restrictions imposed by CPLR 320(a) which govern the service of an answer or the making of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 04292, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

You might also like
Summary Judgment Premature—Disclosure Necessary
DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE.
SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Triable Issues of Fact Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Allowing Third Parties to Operate Remote Control Cars On Its Parking Lot—Motorcyclist Injured When Attempting to Avoid a Remote Controlled Car
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
​THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD OF EXCESSIVE ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IRRATIONAL AND WARRANTED VACATION OF THE ENTIRE ARBITRATION AWARD (SECOND DEPT),
PLAINTIFF CHURCH’S OBJECTION TO THE SYNOD’S TAKING CONTROL OF A SCHOOL OPERATED BY PLAINTIFF CHURCH IS A RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY WHICH IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN STATE COURTS (SECOND DEPT).
Action Against Broker for Failure to Procure Correct Coverage Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Question of Injured Worker’s Employment Status Must First Be Determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board

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

A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING USE OF A PERSON’S... PLAINTIFF-PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT...