You are here: / / THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOR TAKING A JUDGMENT RUNS FROM THE DEFAULT AFTER THE...
,

THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOR TAKING A JUDGMENT RUNS FROM THE DEFAULT AFTER THE FILING AND SERVING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, NOT A SUBSEQUENT AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the one-year period for taking a judgment after a default runs from the default after the filing and serving of the original complaint, not the amended complaint:

The mortgage foreclosure action should have been dismissed as against original borrower Melissa Eaton, pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), because plaintiff failed to “take proceedings for the entry of judgment” within one year of Eaton’s default. The time to seek a default judgment should be measured from the default in responding to the original, not the amended, complaint … . Although an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and therefore requires a new responsive pleading to avoid default … , allowing the filing of an amended complaint to effectively cure a failure to timely move for a default in responding to the original complaint would create an exception that swallows the rule. Because plaintiff did not move for a default judgment until well after one year after Eaton’s default in responding to the original complaint, and because plaintiff fails to offer any excuse for this delay … , dismissal was appropriate under CPLR 3215(c) — notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to bring a new action due to expiration of the statute of limitations … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Shay, 2021 NY Slip Op 00237, First Dept 1-14-21

 

You might also like
THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD DIED BEFORE SHE AND PETITIONER WERE TO BE MARRIED; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER ARGUED PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY AND FAMILY COURT AGREED; HOWEVER STANDING CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY EXTRAORDINAY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FIRST DEPT).
Allowing Testimony that Defendant’s Name Was Mentioned in an Out-of-Court Conversation About the Underlying Assault Was (Harmless) Error/The Confrontation Clause Was Not Implicated Because the Hearsay Was Not Testimonial/Admission of the Hearsay Was Not Justified as “Completing the Narrative” or “Preventing Jury Confusion”
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ONE OF THE DEFENDANT’S EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE SITE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT, A PODIATRIST, USING ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (OZONE THERAPY), TREATED PLAINTIFF FOR LYME DISEASE; DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, WHETHER THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ABSENT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISTAKES IS NOT THE FOCUS OF THE INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE ANALYSIS.
THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT UNCONSITUTIONAL RENDERED THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON STATUTE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY IN 2016 UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN 2016 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF LANDLORD WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THE FULLY EXECUTED LEASE WAS EVER DELIVERED TO DEFENDANT TENANT; THEREFORE THE LANDLORD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE TERMS OF THE LEASE (FIRST DEPT). ​
HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LABOR LAW LIABILITY APPLIED, DESPITE PRESENCE OF THREE FAMILIES IN THE HOME.

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 EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION OF A SHOTGUN AND SHOTGUN... THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED; EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED...