You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD...
, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in this foreclosure action, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held that a party (Moreno) was a necessary party and should not have dismissed the complaint against the other defendants on that ground:

Bromley [plaintiff] argues, in effect, that it was denied due process as a result of being unable to contest whether Dual Properties is the fee owner and whether Moreno is a necessary party.

“The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Here, the record does not support the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Moreno’s ownership of the property was “uncontested.” In any event, the court’s determination that Moreno was a necessary party prejudiced Bromley in that “it was never afforded the opportunity to present evidence refuting the court’s sua sponte determination” … .

Accordingly, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to, sua sponte, direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the remaining defendants for failure to join a necessary party. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Moreno, 2018 NY Slip Op 08107, Second Dept 11-28-18

FORECLOSURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/NECESSARY PARTIES (FORECLOSURE, SUA SPONTE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION PER SE (DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY STATED PLAINTIFF ENGAGED IN MONEY LAUNDERING); ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION INVOLVED “PUBLIC PETITION AND PARTICIPATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SLAPP STATUTE, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE DEFAMATION ACTION HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW; THEREFORE THE SLAPP STATUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Although There Was Evidence the Plaintiff Failed to Yield the Right-of-Way, There Was a Triable Question of Fact Whether Defendant Could Have Taken Steps to Avoid the Collision
Failure to Plead Res Ipsa Loquitur Does Not Preclude Application of Theory.
CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED.
WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE, THE DECEDENT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED OUTSIDE THE ESTATE TO THE DISTRIBUTEES AS TENANTS IN COMMON; THEREFORE, THE PARTITION ACTION BY ONE OF THE TENANTS IN COMMON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISED ON THE GROUND AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE HAD BEEN APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).
NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200 AND 240 (1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY 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

CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS... VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED...