You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK MADE A DEFECTIVE MOTION (WHICH WAS REJECTED) FOR AN ORDER...
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MADE A DEFECTIVE MOTION (WHICH WAS REJECTED) FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT CORRECT THE ERRORS IN THE MOTION FOR TEN YEARS; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ACTION HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACTION SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action, by filing a motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default, demonstrated it did not intend to abandon the action and the matter, therefore, should be restored to the calendar. The facts that the motion was initially rejected and plaintiff delayed ten years before addressing the defects in the motion did not require a different result:

Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint in this action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff demonstrated that it filed a motion, inter alia, for an order of reference on October 24, 2008, which was within one year of the defendants’ default in the action. Presenting this motion to the court was sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff’s intent to have the action proceed, notwithstanding that the motion papers were ultimately rejected by the court as defective … .. Although our dissenting colleague notes that the plaintiff thereafter failed to explain its failure to fix the defects that resulted in the motion papers being rejected for a period of 10 years, once a plaintiff establishes “compliance with CPLR 3215(c),” it is “not required, under the plain language of that subdivision, to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c)” ,,, ,Thus, because the plaintiff did not abandon the action, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lamarre, 2022 NY Slip Op 07056, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action made a defective motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default. That motion was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, even though motion was rejected and plaintiff did not correct the defects in the motion for ten years. The judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint and the matter should have been restored to the calendar.

 

You might also like
DOG INJURED PLAINTIFF BY RUNNING AND JUMPING UP ON HER IN PLAY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DOG DID NOT HAVE A PROPENSITY TO JUMP IN PLAY EXCEPT ON COMMAND.
BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING, AS OPPOSED TO WIND, CAUSED THE PROPERTY DAMAGE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE INSURER BASED UPON POLICY EXCLUSIONS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED THE PROGNOSIS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT, RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE, AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY; THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT.
PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TIMELY FILE AND SERVE HIS OPPOSITION PAPERS AND DEMONSTRATED A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE OPPOSITION PAPERS BEFORE ISSUING ITS ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION; THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Overriding Village Legislative Cap on Number of Taxicab Licenses Not a Proper Subject of Mandamus Action—Applicability of Mandamus Explained

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

AFTER DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND FOLLOWING AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES PLAINTIFF... RESETTLEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS PROPER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CORRECTING...