You are here: / / THE ONLY ACTION PLAINTIFF TOOK WITHIN A YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT...
,

THE ONLY ACTION PLAINTIFF TOOK WITHIN A YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE WAS TO REQUEST A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; BUT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE; SINCE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN TO ENTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR, THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within one year requiring dismissal of the complaint. Although plaintiff did request a settlement conference within one year, the settlement conference was not required because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure:

… [P]laintiff had one year from July 17, 2012, to take proceedings for the entry of judgment against the defendant (see CPLR 3215[c] …). However, the plaintiff did not take such proceedings until over two years later, when it moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference in March 2015. Thus, the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default. Although the plaintiff filed a request for judicial intervention requesting a foreclosure settlement conference within the one-year period after the defendant’s default, a settlement conference was not required in this case because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure (see CPLR 3408[a][1]). As such, the filing of the request for judicial intervention did not constitute the taking of proceedings for the entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) and did not toll the one-year deadline to do so … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Islam, 2026 NY Slip Op 03015, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Requesting a settlement conference which is not required does not toll the one-year period for taking proceedings to enter a default judgment in a foreclosure action.

 

You might also like
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE WRONG VENUE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VENUE; IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE BASED UPON A STILLBIRTH, MOTHER’S AND FATHER’S PETITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND RESPONDENTS’ LACK OF PREJUDICE; MOTHER’S PETITION WAS GRANTED AND FATHER’S WAS DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS STEMMING FROM AN ATTACK ON THE COMPLAINANT, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OR ABSENCE OF IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT UPON FILING A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING; THE INSTANT ACTION IS THEREFORE TIMELY BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE INSTANT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S SIGNING OF A WRITTEN WAIVER (SECOND DEPT).
PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL REGULATORY TAKING OF CLAIMANT’S PROPERTY.
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ASSESSMENT OF POINTS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE (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

A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER LABOR LAW... BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE ON NOTICE,...