You are here: / / BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DID NOT SPECIFY CONDUCT...
,

BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DID NOT SPECIFY CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE SIX-MONTH TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) APPLIED AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a strong dissent, determined that the foreclosure was timely commenced pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) within six months of the dismissal of the initial complaint. The six-month toll of the statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) does not apply to a dismissal for neglect to prosecute. However, the order dismissing the action for neglect to prosecute must specify the conduct constituting neglect. The majority concluded the order did not include any specific findings of neglect. The dissent disagreed:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention and the finding of our dissenting colleague, the 2010 action was not dismissed for neglect to prosecute, a category of dismissal that renders CPLR 205(a) inapplicable. “Where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action . . . , the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” (CPLR 205[a]). Here, the order dated April 6, 2017, “did not include any findings of specific conduct demonstrating ‘a general pattern of delay in proceeding'” … . Moreover, by dismissing the 2010 action without prejudice, the Supreme Court “permitted the plaintiff to avail itself of CPLR 205(a) to recommence the foreclosure action” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Baquero, 2021 NY Slip Op 01246, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

You might also like
HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS DISMISSED; POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SENTENCE SHOULD BE CONCURRENT WITH THE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ASSAULT SENTENCES (SECOND DEPT).
Forcing Appellant to Proceed Without Counsel in a Family Court Act Article 8 Action Required Reversal of Order of Protection
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A PARTY WHO DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE BUT DID SIGN THE MORTGAGE IS A “BORROWER” ENTITLED TO RPAPL 1304 NOTICE; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Statute of Limitations Defense Waived If Not Raised in a Timely Motion to Dismiss
Local Law Purporting to Limit Term of County District Attorney Preempted by New York Constitution and State Law
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (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

PLAINTIFF HUSBAND IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION INSTALLED SPYWARE WHICH INTERCEPTED... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT...