JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mehrnia
| Decision Date | 26 October 2016 |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07003,143 A.D.3d 946,39 N.Y.S.3d 801 (Mem) |
| Parties | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., appellant, v. Mehran MEHRNIA, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
143 A.D.3d 946
39 N.Y.S.3d 801 (Mem)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07003
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., appellant,
v.
Mehran MEHRNIA, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 26, 2016.
Stiene & Associates, P.C., Huntington, NY (Charles W. Marino and Marianna Dalton of counsel), for appellant.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the
Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), dated April 2, 2014, which denied its unopposed motion to restore the action to the calendar.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the calendar is granted.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the plaintiff properly moved to restore the action to active status, rather than moving to vacate a dismissal of an action (see Reed v. Cornell Univ., 101 A.D.3d 840, 955 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs., 98 A.D.3d 657, 949 N.Y.S.2d 769 ). The action was never formally dismissed, 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, 888 N.Y.S.2d 599 ; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). Moreover, no 90–day notice was ever issued pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Varricchio v. Sterling, 86 A.D.3d 535, 926 N.Y.S.2d 320 ; Wasif v. Khan, 82 A.D.3d 1084, 919 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d at 194, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 ), and no order was issued dismissing the action under 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Florexile–Victor v. Douglas, 135 A.D.3d at 903, 22 N.Y.S.3d 912; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Gibson, 111 A.D.3d 875, 976 N.Y.S.2d 142 ; Varricchio v. Sterling, 86 A.D.3d at 535, 926 N.Y.S.2d 320 ; 123X Corp. v. McKenzie, 7 A.D.3d 769, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am. v. Ali
...of issue actions such as this one (see WM Specialty Mtge., LLC v Palazzollo, 145 A.D.3d 714, 715; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Mehrnia, 143 A.D.3d 946, 947). Finally, we reject the defendant's contention that the instant action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the 2015 acti......
-
Bank of Am. v. Ali
...of issue actions such as this one (see WM Specialty Mtge., LLC v Palazzollo, 145 A.D.3d 714, 715; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Mehrnia, 143 A.D.3d 946, 947). Finally, we reject the defendant's contention that the instant action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the 2015 acti......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Ali
...(see WM Specialty Mtge., LLC v. Palazzollo, 145 A.D.3d 714, 715, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899 ; 163 N.Y.S.3d 164 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mehrnia, 143 A.D.3d 946, 947, 39 N.Y.S.3d 801 ). Finally, we reject the defendant's contention that the instant action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata ......
-
Bank of Am. v. Ali
...of issue actions such as this one (see WM Specialty Mtge., LLC v Palazzollo, 145 A.D.3d 714, 715; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Mehrnia, 143 A.D.3d 946, 947). Finally, we reject the defendant's contention that the instant action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the 2015 acti......