WM Specialty Mortg., LLC v. Palazzollo

• Decision Date: 07 December 2016
• Parties: WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC, etc., respondent, v. Frank PALAZZOLLO, etc., et al., defendants, Stacy Palazzollo, etc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

145 A.D.3d 714

41 N.Y.S.3d 899 (Mem)

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08228

WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC, etc., respondent,

v.Frank PALAZZOLLO, etc., et al., defendants,Stacy Palazzollo, etc., appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 7, 2016.

Thomas Weiss & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Lindsay Boorman of counsel), for appellant.

Stiene & Associates, P.C., Huntington, N.Y. (Marianna Dalton and Justine J.A. Cefalu of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Stacy Palazzollo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered October 13, 2015, which granted the plaintiff's motion, in effect, to restore the action to active status.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion, in effect, to restore this action to active status after it had been marked “disposed.” Contrary to the appellant's contention, there is no indication that the action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), and no basis for a dismissal pursuant thereto (see CPLR 3215[c] ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Traore, 139 A.D.3d 1009, 1010, 32 N.Y.S.3d 283 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Gross, 139 A.D.3d 772, 772, 32 N.Y.S.3d 249 ; U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Bassett, 137 A.D.3d 1109, 28 N.Y.S.3d 109 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Combs, 128 A.D.3d 812, 813, 10 N.Y.S.3d 121 ). Additionally, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Cerrone v. North Shore—Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 134 A.D.3d 874, 875, 20 N.Y.S.3d 539 ; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 198, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). Further, no 90–day notice was served pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 17, 21, 970 N.Y.S.2d 229 ), and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Casavecchia v. Mizrahi, 62 A.D.3d 741, 742, 877 N.Y.S.2d 906 ).

RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.