You are here: / / THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S...
,

THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S ORDER; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT A SHOWING OF MERIT; THE ISSUE, FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL, WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should have been restored to the active calendar because the 90-day demand required by CPLR 3216 was never provided. The issue was properly considered for the first time on appeal because, had the issue been raised below, it could not have been ignored:

Here, the order dated June 26, 2018 … directed the filing of a note of issue by June 29, 2018, but failed to provide the plaintiff with 90 days within which to comply with that directive. Thus, the order dated June 26, 2018, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Moreover, the order dated June 26, 2018, did not contain the requisite language advising that failure to file a note of issue would be the basis for a motion to dismiss … . …

Although the plaintiff’s contentions i… are raised for the first time on appeal, they may be reached, as they involve issues of law appearing on the face of the record that could not have been avoided if they had been raised at the proper juncture … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Segal, 2023 NY Slip Op 06146, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: The failure to provide the 90-demand required by CPLR 3216 is reversible error which can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S REMARKS DURING SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY OF A FAIR TRIAL; OVER $1 MILLION JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE/PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW ACTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PRESENTING ONLY HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS OFFERED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION FOR THE RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE; HERE OTHER NOTICES WERE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE ALONG WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT).
Rear-End Collision: No Rational Process By Which Jury Could Have Found Plaintiff Negligent
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONER-REPORTER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL ACTION DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF... PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A...