HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Oqlah
| Decision Date | 25 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2016–03020,2016–09927,Index No. 503099/15 |
| Citation | 163 A.D.3d 928,82 N.Y.S.3d 584 |
| Parties | HSBC BANK USA, N.A., etc., respondent, v. Tarek OQLAH, appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
163 A.D.3d 928
82 N.Y.S.3d 584
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., etc., respondent,
v.
Tarek OQLAH, appellant, et al., defendants.
2016–03020
2016–09927
Index No. 503099/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued - April 12, 2018
July 25, 2018
Tsyngauz & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Yevgeny Tsyngauz and Simon I. Malinowski of counsel), for appellant.
Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Chava Brandriss, and Ryan Sirianni of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Tarek Oqlah appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated February 24, 2016, and (2) an order of the same court (Noach Dear, J.), dated September 15, 2016. The order dated February 24, 2016, granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant Tarek Oqlah to the extent of granting the plaintiff a 60–day extension, and denied that defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The order dated September 15, 2016, denied that defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to deem service of the summons and complaint on that defendant timely, nunc pro tunc.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Subsequent to commencing this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant Tarek Oqlah (hereinafter the defendant), and the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 306–b to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. In an order dated February 24, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion to the extent that the plaintiff was granted a 60–day extension, and denied the defendant's motion. On April 26, 2016, one day after the 60–day extension expired, the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Newton v. McFarlane
-
Mighty v. Deshommes
...Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 N.Y.2d 95, 105–106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Oqlah , 163 A.D.3d 928, 929–930, 82 N.Y.S.3d 584 ; Bumpus v. New York City Tr. Auth. , 66 A.D.3d 26, 32, 883 N.Y.S.2d 99 ). The Supreme Court providently exercised it......
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Kothary
...741 and that there was no identifiable prejudice to Kothary as a consequence of the delay in service (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Oqlah , 163 A.D.3d 928, 930, 82 N.Y.S.3d 584 ; Chan v. Zoubarev , 157 A.D.3d at 852, 69 N.Y.S.3d 695 ; Singh v. Trahan , 153 A.D.3d 961, 60 N.Y.S.3d 425 ). Howeve......
-
BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Rogener
...N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ; see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Barrella, 166 A.D.3d at 713, 88 N.Y.S.3d 36 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Oqlah, 163 A.D.3d 928, 929, 82 N.Y.S.3d 584 ; Wilson v. City of New York, 118 A.D.3d 983, 984, 988 N.Y.S.2d 650 ). The plaintiff failed to establish that an exten......