You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION...
, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ON THAT GROUND, THE DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S “LIMITED APPEARANCE” AT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER; THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an attorneys “limited appearance” at a foreclosure settlement conference provided the court with jurisdiction over matter despite the fact defendants demonstrated they were not properly served with the summons and complaint:

… [A]n attorney appeared in the action on behalf of the defendants by filing notices of appearance that represented that counsel was making “a limited appearance for the settlement conference pursuant to CPLR Rule 3408.” However, neither the defendants nor counsel for the defendants raised any objection to personal jurisdiction at that time by either a timely motion to dismiss on that ground or by interposing a timely answer asserting lack of personal jurisdiction … . Although the notices of appearance purported to limit counsel’s appearance to the foreclosure settlement conferences, “such language ‘is not a talisman to protect the defendant[s] from [their] failure to take timely and appropriate action to preserve [their] defense of lack of personal jurisdiction'” … . Since the defendants had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to timely assert it, that defense was not a proper basis on which to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale … . US Bank N.A. v Chkifati, 2022 NY Slip Op 02151, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendants proved they were not properly served with the summons and complaint in this foreclosure action and Supreme Court granted their motion to vacate the judgment. However the appellate court reversed because the defendants’ attorney’s “limited appearance” for the settlement conferenced provided the court with jurisdiction (just as if defendants had been properly served).

 

You might also like
Even Records Demonstrated to Be Material and Necessary to the Prosecution or Defense of an Action Are Not Discoverable If Privileged and the Privilege Is Not Waived
THE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION THAT THERE WAS NO SWIMMING POOL ON THE PROPERTY JUSTIFIED THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROCEEDING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ATTEMPTED A LEFT TURN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE POLICE REPORT, PHOTOS AND DASHBOARD VIDEO WERE INADMISSIBLE AND DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS FREE FROM FAULT (SECOND DEPT).
COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Portion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Order Not Supported by Testimony Should Not Have Been Included
UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR CAN NOT RECOVER UNDER HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT OR IN QUANTUM MERUIT.
INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION.
HIGHWAY LAW ALLOWING AN UNUSED PUBLIC EASEMENT TO BE DECLARED ABANDONED DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY OWNS A FEE INTEREST IN THE ROADBED.

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

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEND DEFENDANT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT... THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR SAID TRAVEL...