You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ ATTENDANCE AT A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (CPLR...
,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTENDANCE AT A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (CPLR 3408) IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN “APPEARANCE” IN THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO FIVE DAYS NOTICE (PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (G)) RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, in a matter of first impression, determined defendants’ attendance at a mandatory settlement conference in this foreclosure action did not constitute an “appearance” such that defendants were entitled to five-days notice of an application for leave to enter a default judgment:

The issue on appeal, an issue of first impression for this Court, is whether a party’s attendance at a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 constitutes an appearance by a party for the purpose of CPLR 3215(g), which provides, among other things, that a party who has appeared in an action is entitled to at least five days’ notice of an application for leave to enter a default judgment. * * * Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants had not appeared in the action and, thus, the five-day notice provision set forth in CPLR 3215(g) was not applicable with respect to the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Saris, 2025 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 12-24-25

Practice Point: A defendant’s attendance at a mandatory settlement conference (CPLR 3408) is not an “appearance” in the action and does not entitle defendant to five days notice (pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g)) re: plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE A SCAFFOLD WHILE STANDING ON IT AND IT FELL OVER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Lawsuit Properly Dismissed on “Forum Non Conveniens” Grounds
RENOVATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES DISQUALIFIES HOMEOWNER FROM HOMEOWNERS’ EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6);QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOMEOWNER’S INTENTION AT TIME OF INJURY.
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
THE JUDGE, IN RENDERING THE VERDICT, STATED THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PROVEN HE WAS FRAMED AND THEREFORE WAS GUILTY; THAT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENDANT, REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
“To a Reasonable Degree of Medical Probability” Properly States the Standard for Expert Opinion on Proximate Cause
A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE POLICE “COMMUNITY CARETAKING FUNCTION;” BUT THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING WHICH LED TO DEFENDANT’S DWI ARREST WAS “COMMENSURATE WITH ANY PERCEIVED NEED FOR ASSISTANCE;” INDICTMENT DISMISSED (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

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, DEFENDANT COUNTY, WHICH HAD ASSUMED CUSTODY... A CERTIFICATE OF INURANCE NAMING A PARTY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IS EVIDENCE...