You are here: / / EVEN THOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WAS REJECTED...
,

EVEN THOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WAS REJECTED AS DEFICIENT, THE MOTION CONSTITUTED INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the foreclosure action should have been granted. The bank’s motion for an order of reference made within one year of defendant’s default was a sufficient step toward taking a default judgment within the meaning of CPLR 3215 (c), even though the motion was rejected as deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment by moving for an order of reference within one year of the defendant’s default in the action … . “‘The fact that the Supreme Court rejected the motion as defective is beside the point, as the mere presentment of it established the plaintiff’s intent to proceed toward the entry of judgment and not to abandon the action'” … . Since the plaintiff did not fail to take timely proceedings for a judgment against the defendant within the meaning of CPLR 3215(c), the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate an excuse for its purported delay in moving to vacate the dismissal order … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order was not subject to any specific time limitation … . … Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion … pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Wint, 2025 NY Slip Op 00698, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Here the bank’s unsuccessful motion for an order of reference met the criteria for initiating proceedings to take a default judgment within one year of defendants’ default.

 

You might also like
A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DOORMAN OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS MONEY DAMAGES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Judge’s Failure to Comply with CPL Re: Response to Jury Note Required Reversal
Joint Custody Inappropriate Where Parents Can Not Cooperate​
MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, SIMILARLY THE MOTION VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)

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

IT WAS ALLEGED A TEACHER SEXUALLY ABUSED PLAINTIFF STUDENT ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK... ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE A JUDGMENT...