You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the law-office-failure offered as an excuse for failure to comply with a conditional order in this foreclosure action was not sufficient to justify vacating the dismissal of the action:

To vacate the dismissal, HSBC was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the noncompliance with the conditional order of dismissal and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216… ). Here, the proffered excuse of law office failure by prior counsel in failing to timely file a note of issue or move for entry of judgment was conclusory and wholly unsubstantiated (see CPLR 2005…). HSBC did not proffer an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure and failed to provide any details regarding such failure. Therefore, the allegation of law office failure did not rise to the level of a reasonable excuse … . Fremont Inv. & Loan v Fausta, 2018 NY Slip Op 06084, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2005 (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE  (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the language in a letter was not sufficient to trigger the acceleration of the debt, which, in turn, would have started the the running of the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action:

In June 2005, nonparty Cecilia Adebola executed a promissory note in the sum of $549,000 in favor of Fremont Investment & Loan [FBP] secured by a mortgage encumbering real property located in Brooklyn. After Adebola defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage, the loan servicer sent her a notice of default dated July 3, 2006. The notice of default stated, in relevant part, that “[i]f the default is not cured on or before August 7, 2006, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount . . . becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” * * *

Here, it is clear from the record that FBP cannot establish that the notice of default letter was a clear and unequivocal acceleration of the mortgage … . The notice of default “was nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage's optional acceleration clause” … . Fbp 250, LLC v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 06082, Second Dept 9-19-18

FORECLOSURE (DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/ACCELERATION OF MORTGAGE  (DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))

,

A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a Cash Account Agreement memorializing a reverse mortgage was not a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code and plaintiff, therefore, did not have standing to foreclose after the borrower’s death:

… [T]o qualify as a negotiable instrument under the UCC, a document must “(a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and (b) contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by this Article; and (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and (d) be payable to order or to bearer” (UCC 3-104[1] …). * * *

… [T]he Cash Account Agreement is signed by the borrower and contains an unconditional promise to pay. In addition to this … the Cash Account Agreement also contains provisions that go well beyond what is permitted under the UCC. Most significantly, the Cash Account Agreement creates an open-end (i.e., revolving) line of credit upon which the borrower could draw a maximum of $806,152. Since the initial advance in this case was only $366,152, the borrower potentially could have drawn down as much as $440,000 more from the lender. Consistent with these terms, the borrower promised to pay when due “all amounts advanced” under the Cash Account Agreement. Although the plaintiff contends that such an agreement constitutes a negotiable instrument, we have found no New York case …directly on point. In other jurisdictions, however, similar line of credit agreements have been held to be distinct from an agreement to pay a sum certain … . …

Beyond this … the Cash Account Agreement also provides for the periodic adjustment of the advance limit, and allows the lender, inter alia, to suspend, terminate, or reduce the borrower’s right to obtain future advances under certain circumstances. …

On its face, the Cash Account Agreement does much more than memorialize the borrower’s unconditional promise to pay a sum of money. It creates a banking relationship between the lender and the borrower, provides terms and conditions under which the borrower may, from time to time, obtain additional cash advances from the lender, and even contains an arbitration clause. Although the Cash Account Agreement appears to have been signed only by the borrower, section 17.2 specifically acknowledges that it imposes obligations on both the borrower and the lender. The specific language of several provisions of the Cash Account Agreement, read in context of the agreement as a whole, provides compelling evidence that the Cash Account Agreement is not, and was never intended to be, a negotiable instrument … .

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot establish its standing merely by showing that it possessed the original Cash Account Agreement, indorsed in blank, on the date this action was commenced, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint should have been denied. OneWest Bank, N.A. v FMCDH Realty, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06101, Second Dept 9-19-18

FORECLOSURE (REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/REVERSE MORTGAGE (A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORECLOSURE, REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT (FORECLOSURE, REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of a foreclosure action was properly denied. Plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled court conference and the law-office-failure excuse was deemed inadequate:

In order to vacate a default in appearing at a scheduled court conference, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]… ). The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where the claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default… .

Here, the plaintiff's bare allegation of law office failure was insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its lengthy delay in moving to vacate the order of dismissal … . Option One Mtge. Corp. v Rose, 2018 NY Slip Op 06023, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2005 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the failure to submit an order for signature within 60 days constituted abandonment of the action:

The Supreme Court declined to sign the plaintiff's proposed order granting it summary judgment and, in the order appealed from, the court vacated the decision entered September 16, 2009, in effect, granted that branch of the motion … which was pursuant to CPLR 3215 to dismiss the complaint insofar … as abandoned, and, thereupon, directed dismissal of the complaint in its entirety pursuant to CPLR 1003.

“Proposed orders . . . , with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]). “Failure to submit the order . . . timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48[b]). These provisions are not applicable where the decision does not explicitly direct that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature (see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364). However, the direction to “settle order” “ordinarily entails more complicated relief,” and therefore “contemplates notice to the opponent so that both parties may either agree on a draft or prepare counter proposals to be settled before the court” (Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d at 367). Here, the decision entered September 16, 2009, directed the plaintiff to “settle order.” Lasalle Bank N.A. v Benjamin, 2018 NY Slip Op 06005, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1003  (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE  (FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled, pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501 and the statute of limitations, to cancel and discharge a mortgage which defendant bank (Deutsche Bank) had accelerated more than six years before. Defendant bank argued that a letter sent by the original property owner, Aird (who had taken out the mortgage), pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101, acknowledged the debt and revived the time-barred claim. Supreme Court properly rejected that argument:

“General Obligations Law § 17-101 effectively revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt” … . To constitute a valid acknowledgment, a “writing must be signed and recognize an existing debt and must contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it” … . Contrary to Deutsche Bank's contention, a letter written by Aird that accompanied his second short sale package submitted to Deutsche Bank's loan servicer did not constitute an unqualified acknowledgment of the debt or manifest a promise to repay the debt sufficient to reset the running of the statute of limitations … . Karpa Realty Group, LLC v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 05921, Second Dept 8-29-18

Similar issues and result in Yadegar v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co, 2018 NY Slip Op 05957, Second Dept 8-29-18

FORECLOSURE (LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FORECLOSURE, GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the order and judgment of foreclosure was properly granted. The court explained that an addendum to the note, which included the phrase “notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Note,” controlled. Based on the language of the addendum, appellants were required to make monthly payments during the construction period. Appellants had argued that, under the terms of the Note, no payments were required until the construction was complete:

“[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . “Where the terms of an agreement are unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law for the court” … . “A written contract will be read as a whole, and every part will be interpreted with reference to the whole; and if possible it will be so interpreted as to give effect to its general purpose” … . It is important not to distort the meaning of a writing by placing “excessive emphasis . . . upon particular words or phrases” … .

Here, pursuant to the note, Todd Amus agreed that he would “pay interest beginning on the Permanent Loan Commencement Date,” i.e., January 1, 2010, and would “make these payments every month until [he had] paid all the principal and interest and any other charges” he might owe under the note. However, Todd Amus also executed the note addendum, which was incorporated into and “deemed to amend and supplement the Note,” and in which he agreed to its terms “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Note.” IndyMac Venture, LLC v Amus, 2018 NY Slip Op 05920, Second Dept 8-29-18

CONTRACT LAW (“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT))/NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE (CONTRACT LAW, “NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT))

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order to show cause was proper and the judge should not have refused to sign it. The defendants in this foreclosure action properly sought an order to show cause in their action to vacate the default judgment:

The defendants Jacob Hirsch and Blime Hirsch (hereinafter together the Hirsches) defaulted by failing to appear in this action to foreclose a mortgage on real property they owned. A judgment of foreclosure and sale dated December 12, 2014, was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against, among others, the Hirches. On December 3, 2015, the Hirsches presented a proposed order to show cause to the Supreme Court, seeking to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), (3), and (4), to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel based upon an alleged conflict of interest, and to cancel the notice of pendency. The proposed order to show cause also sought a temporary restraining order staying the foreclosure sale of the property scheduled for later that day, December 3, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., pending the hearing and determination of their proposed motion. After oral argument, the court declined to sign the proposed order to show cause, with a handwritten notation that the Hirsches failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action and that the Hirsches failed to submit proof of misconduct by the plaintiff's attorney. …

“The court in a proper case may grant an order to show cause, to be served in lieu of a notice of motion, at a time and in a manner specified therein” (CPLR 2214[d]). Whether the circumstances constitute a “proper case” for the use of an order to show cause instead of a notice of motion is a matter within the discretion of the court to which the proposed order is presented … . Here, under the particular circumstances of this case, this was a proper case for the use of an order to show cause, and the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to sign the proposed order to show cause … . Gluck v Hirsch, 2018 NY Slip Op 05828, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2214  (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the conditional order requiring that a note of issue or motion be filed by plaintiff bank within ninety days did not meet the requirements of a notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Therefore the administrative dismissal of the foreclosure action was invalid:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . As relevant here, an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought' in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . While a conditional order of dismissal may have “the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order here “was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion' by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Moreover, the conditional order failed to satisfy the notice requirement on the additional ground that there was “no indication that the plaintiff's counsel was present at the status conference at which the court issued the conditional order of dismissal,” nor was there “evidence that the order was ever properly served upon the plaintiff” … . In the absence of proper notice, “the court was without power to dismiss the action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the conditional order of dismissal” … . Lastly, the Supreme Court erred in administratively dismissing the action without further notice to the parties and without benefit of further judicial review … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bastelli, 2018 NY Slip Op 05822, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL FORECLOSURE, CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in this foreclosure action should have been granted. Plaintiff did not seek a default judgment within one year and did not provide an excuse for the delay:

The plaintiff failed to seek a default judgment on the unanswered complaint within one year after the default, as required by CPLR 3215(c) … . To avoid dismissal of the action as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment and a potentially meritorious cause of action… . The plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment. Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment, this Court need not consider whether it had a potentially meritorious cause of action… .

A defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by serving an answer or taking any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance … . Here, the defendants did not appear in the action, either formally or informally. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Heilpern, 2018 NY Slip Op 05752, Second Dept 8-15-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (DEFAULT, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEFAULT, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy