You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s foreclosure action, sua sponte, as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Supreme Court, after plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed the plaintiff to “submit judgment.” When plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment for signature, Supreme Court dismissed the action because the proposed judgment was not submitted within 60 days. The 60-day time limit only applies when a party is directed to submit the judgment “on notice:”

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48, an order or judgment which is directed to be settled or submitted on notice must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order or judgment be settled or submitted. A party who fails to submit the order or judgment within the 60-day time period will be deemed to have abandoned the action or motion, absent good cause shown … . In this case, when the Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, it did not direct that the proposed judgment had to be settled or submitted on notice. 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where, as here, the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice … . James B. Nutter & Co. v McLaughlin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07178, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

You might also like
LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED DOES NOT EXCUSE A LATE DISCLAIMER, TIMELINESS OF A DISCLAIMER DEPENDS ON WHEN THE INSURER FIRST LEARNED OF THE ACTION.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE HER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW SHE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DAMAGES TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OR COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE IN THIS MED MAL ACTION, THE COVID-RELATED IMMUNITY CODIFIED IN THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN APRIL 2020, BUT NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN IN MARCH 2020, BEFORE HIS OFFICE WAS CLOSED PURSUANT TO THE COVID EMERGENCY DECLARATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS, RENDERING IT CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE (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 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; AN... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION...