You are here: / / A 2009 AMENDED COMPLAINT SERVED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LEAVE OF COURT, ALTHOUGH...
,

A 2009 AMENDED COMPLAINT SERVED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LEAVE OF COURT, ALTHOUGH INVALID AS A PLEADING, RE-ACCELERATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage debt had been re-accelerated by an amended complaint in 2009, rendering the instant foreclosure action time-barred:

… [T]he defendants also submitted the supplemental summons and amended complaint filed on July 13, 2009, in the 2005 action. In the amended complaint, PCG elected to re-accelerate the debt, which started the running of a new six-year period.

The supplemental summons and amended complaint were filed without the required leave of court (see CPLR 3025[b]). However, PCG’s counsel, in an affirmation dated October 9, 2013, submitted with a stipulation to discontinue the 2005 action and a stipulation cancelling the notice of pendency, agreed that the amended complaint, “while arguably insufficient as a pleading, provided that the loan was again accelerated,” and stated that “[t]hus, the loan remains accelerated from July 22, 2009, the date the amended complaint was served up and delivered to [the defendants], as per the corresponding affidavits of service.”

By the submission of these documents, the defendants established that the time in which to sue expired on July 22, 2015, six years after the service of the supplemental summons and amended complaint (see CPLR 213[4]), PCG’s counsel having conceded that the loan was accelerated as of that time. Goshen Mtge., LLC v DePalma, 2020 NY Slip Op 04830, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

You might also like
Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law
ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries
Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended Complaint) Explained
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN SLIP AND FALL AREA LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
The Unjustified Denial of Defense Counsel’s Request to Withdraw a Peremptory Challenge Was, Under the Facts, Subject to a Harmless Error Analysis
Failure to Comply with Service Method in Order to Show Cause Required Dismissal
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ABSENT SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (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

THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL)... THE POLICE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER OF THE CAR ALLEGED...