Bank of N.Y. v. Arden
| Decision Date | 29 June 2016 |
| Parties | BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., appellant, v. William C. ARDEN, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bryan Cave, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Suzanne M. Berger and Elizabeth J. Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), dated July 7, 2014, which denied its motion to restore the action to active status and to refer the action to the settlement conference part.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to active status and to refer the action to the settlement conference part is granted.
The plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action in 2005 and, following the defendants' default, obtained an order of reference in 2007. Thereafter, in late 2011, at a time when the plaintiff was securing new counsel due to its former counsel's cessation of business, the Supreme Court scheduled a conference in this action at which none of the parties appeared. As a result, the court effectively marked the action off the active calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404. The plaintiff, unaware of these events, continued to prosecute the action until 2014, when it finally learned that the action had been marked off the calendar and sought to restore it to active status and to have it referred to the settlement conference part. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff had failed to move to restore the action within the one-year time limit of CPLR 3404 and that the action was deemed abandoned as a consequence. We reverse.
The Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's unopposed motion to restore, since CPLR 3404 is inapplicable to pre-note of issue actions such as this one (see Cerrone v. North Shore–Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 134 A.D.3d 874, 875, 20 N.Y.S.3d 539 ; Kapnisakis v. Woo, 114 A.D.3d 729, 730, 980 N.Y.S.2d 144 ; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 198, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). Therefore, since this action could not properly be marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not obligated to move to restore within any specified time frame (see Yunga v. Yonkers Contr. Co., Inc., 134 A.D.3d 1031, 1033, 21 N.Y.S.3d 716 ; Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vogler v. Perrault
-
Onewest Bank, FSB v. Kaur
...A.D.3d 714, 715, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899 ; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mehrnia, 143 A.D.3d 946, 947, 39 N.Y.S.3d 801 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Arden, 140 A.D.3d 1099, 1100, 35 N.Y.S.3d 388 ; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 198, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). Further, there was neither a 90–day notic......
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mehrnia
...as the marking-off procedures of CPLR 3404 do not apply to pre-note of issue actions such as this one (see Bank of N.Y. v. Arden, 140 A.D.3d 1099, 35 N.Y.S.3d 388 ; Florexile–Victor v. Douglas, 135 A.D.3d 903, 22 N.Y.S.3d 912; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Simon–Erdan, 67 A.D.3d 750, 88......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Gambino, 2017–08290
...time frame and was not obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious claim (see Bank of N.Y. v. Arden , 140 A.D.3d 1099, 1100, 35 N.Y.S.3d 388 ; Yunga v. Yonkers Contr. Co., Inc. , 134 A.D.3d 1031, 1033, 21 N.Y.S.3d 716 ; Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs., 98 A.D.3d ......