Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Inga
| Decision Date | 20 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2015–11721,Index No. 4493/09 |
| Citation | 156 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. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
156 A.D.3d 760
67 N.Y.S.3d 264
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellant,
v.
Manual INGA, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
2015–11721
Index No. 4493/09
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—October 5, 2017
December 20, 2017
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Williams
...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
...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
...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
...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, ......