You are here: / / CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...
, ,

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was not time barred because CPLR 204(a) in conjunction with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) prohibited bringing the instant action while the first action was pending:

In September 2003, defendant, in exchange for a loan to purchase a residence, executed a note secured by a mortgage on that real property. The note and mortgage were later assigned to plaintiff. After defendant failed to make some payments, on May 5, 2010 plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action against defendant, which Supreme Court (Drago, J.) dismissed on October 30, 2013 for failure to prosecute. In April 2015, Supreme Court (Buchannan, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. In 2017, plaintiff commenced a second foreclosure action. * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides that, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” * * *

The statute that plaintiff relies on, in conjunction with CPLR 204 (a), is RPAPL 1301 (3), which provides that, while an action for a mortgage debt “is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” The purpose of RPAPL 1301 (3) is “to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt … . … [P]laintiff established that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the first foreclosure action, from May 2010 to October 2013. Citimortgage, Inc. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07970, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

You might also like
ONE OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN A VIOLENT CONFRONTATION OUTSIDE A SCHOOL THREATENED TO RETURN THE NEXT DAY WITH A GUN; A TEACHER IMMEDIATELY HELD A MEETING WHERE CALLING IN SICK THE NEXT DAY WAS DISCUSSED; 23 TEACHERS CALLED IN SICK; THAT ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL STRIKE PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICE LAW 210 (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH PROOF OF THE STAIRWAY FALL CASE WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY INSTRUCTION (THIRD DEPT).
CONSPIRACY COUNTS FATALLY FLAWED, NO OVERT ACT WAS ALLEGED, CONVICTIONS REVERSED, COUNTS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT),
Supreme Court Should Not Have Treated Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss as Motion for Summary Judgment
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STATE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE STAY-AWAY ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED BASED SOLELY ON A PSYCHOLOGIST’S REPORTS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TESTIMONY (THIRD 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’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECTLY NAME THE DEFENDANT... THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN...