Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Inga

Decision Date20 December 2017
Docket Number2015–11721,Index No. 4493/09
Citation156 A.D.3d 760,67 N.Y.S.3d 264
Parties DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellant, v. Manual INGA, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Akerman LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jordan M. Smith and Michael Shiba of counsel), for appellant.

Cabanillas & Associates, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Quenten E. Gilliam of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Orazio R. Bellantoni, J.), dated September 22, 2015. The order granted the motion of the defendant Manual Inga pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him for failure to prosecute.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In March 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage against Manual Inga (hereinafter the defendant) and Maria Inga, among others. The defendant served an answer dated May 1, 2009. On October 10, 2014, the defendant served a 90–day demand to resume prosecution and, when the plaintiff failed to comply, moved pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him. In an order dated September 22, 2015, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90–day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), that plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90–day period (see Belson v. Dix Hills A.C., Inc., 119 A.D.3d 623, 623, 990 N.Y.S.2d 49 ; Griffith v. Wray, 109 A.D.3d 512, 513–514, 970 N.Y.S.2d 458 ; Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 671, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910 ). The plaintiff failed to do either within the 90–day period. Therefore, in order to excuse the default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for its failure to timely file the note of issue or move to either vacate the demand or extend the 90–day period, as well as a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 503, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460 ; Furrukh v. Forest Hills Hosp., 107 A.D.3d 668, 966 N.Y.S.2d 497 ; Jedraszak v. County of Westchester, 102 A.D.3d 924, 958 N.Y.S.2d 490 ). Nevertheless, it has been said that CPLR 3216 is "extremely forgiving" ( Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d at 503, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460 ), "in that it never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff's action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable neglect to proceed" ( Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d 382, 383, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568 ; see Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d 632, 633, 768 N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102 ; Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d at 504–505, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460 ; Atterberry v. Serlin & Serlin, 85 A.D.3d 949, 925 N.Y.S.2d 860 ).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff took no action whatsoever in the five...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Williams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 Noviembre 2019
    ...issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90–day period (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Inga, 156 A.D.3d 760, 67 N.Y.S.3d 264 ). The plaintiff here failed to do either within the 90–day period. Therefore, in order to excuse the default, ......
  • HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Izzo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Noviembre 2019
    ...file a note of issue or move, before the default date, for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Inga, 156 A.D.3d 760, 760, 67 N.Y.S.3d 264 ; Furrukh v. Forest Hills Hosp., 107 A.D.3d 668, 669, 966 N.Y.S.2d 497 ). The plaintiff failed to do either ......
  • Rodriguez v. Diallo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 19 Agosto 2020
    ...demand or to extend the 90–day period (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Williams, 177 A.D.3d 950, 952, 111 N.Y.S.3d 654 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Inga, 156 A.D.3d 760 ). The plaintiffs failed to do either within the 90–day period. To avoid dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiffs were r......
  • Angamarca v. 47-51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 5 Diciembre 2018
    ...issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90–day period (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Inga, 156 A.D.3d 760, 67 N.Y.S.3d 264 ). The plaintiff here failed to do either within the 90–day period. Therefore, in order to excuse the default, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT