You are here: / / BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE...
, ,

BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE ON NOTICE, THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; THEREFORE, A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPRL 2221(A) IS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The order dismissing the complaint was not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice. Therefore a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) was proper and should have been granted:

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar. A motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is not subject to any specific time limitation … . Where, as here, an order directing dismissal of a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, it is procedurally proper for the aggrieved party to move pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate that order … .

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” … . Here, CPLR 3215(c) is not applicable to the defendant under the circumstances of this case, as she appeared in the action by answer … . “Further, this action does not present an extraordinary circumstance as would warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint” … . US Bank N.A. v Jones-Boakai, 2026 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: If an order dismissing a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is proper.​

 

You might also like
A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE CURB WHEN PICKING UP OR DISCHARGING PASSENGERS; THE DRIVER STOPPED TWO FEET FROM THE CURB AND PLAINTIFF FELL TRYING TO GET INTO THE VEHICLE; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE UBER DRIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Had Made Out a Prima Facie Case of Undue Influence—Trial Judge Erred by Making Credibility Determinations and Granting a Judgment In Favor of the Defendant As a Matter of Law (CPLR 4401)
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT AN INAUDIBLE RECORDING AND TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A PURPORTED TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION CREATED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW APPLIES TO “RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES,” NOT TO “ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES” (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STREET STOP WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE DEFENDANT BY WILL UPON THE DEATH OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; THEREFORE THE ESTATE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SELLER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY APPROVAL BUT NO DEADLINE FOR ATTORNEY-APPROVAL WAS SET BY THE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL INFORMED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PURCHASE EITHER SEVEN OR NINE DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, WHICH WAS DEEMED A REASONABLE TIME (SECOND DEPT).
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

THE ONLY ACTION PLAINTIFF TOOK WITHIN A YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN... DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR...