You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A...
,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should have been dismissed because plaintiff’s excuse for failing to take a timely default judgment was inadequate:

To avoid dismissal of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) as abandoned, a plaintiff must demonstrate both that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the action is meritorious … . “Although the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the excuse for the plaintiff’s failure to take proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part was not reasonable … . Throughout the course of this litigation, there were unexplained gaps of time where months of inactivity passed. Neither the need to move for the appointment of a successor guardian nor the plaintiff’s change of attorney which change occurred after the statutory one-year period had expired constitutes a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff’s failure to timely prosecute this action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Whaley, 2021 NY Slip Op 05027, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

You might also like
Criteria for Taxpayer Lawsuit Against School District for Misuse of Public Property Not Met; Failure to Serve Notice of Claim Fatal
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Ruled Defendant Could Be Cross-Examined About His Prior Possession of Guns Under Sandoval—Possession of Guns Has No Bearing on Credibility
SURVIVING PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT TIMELY MOVE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 1021, ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Who Was Not Served Because Current Address Not on File with Secretary of State Entitled to Vacate Default Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 317
WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK AFTER HE WAS HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED; CONVICTION REVERSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S QUANTUM MERUIT ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD... THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT REQUIRED...