HSBC Bank USA, National Association, etc., respondent, v Robert Slone, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
2018-05121 (Index No. 2917/15)
Appellate Division, Second Department
July 31, 2019
2019 NY Slip Op 05963
Published by
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P. ROBERT J. MILLER BETSY BARROS ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
John J. Caracciolo, East Northport, NY, for appellants.
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC (Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY [Patrick G. Broderick and Leah Jacob], of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Robert Slone and Mary Slone appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), entered February 26, 2018. The order denied those defendants’ motion pursuant to
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Robert Slone and Mary Slone pursuant to
In October 2012, a prior action to foreclose the same mortgage that is at issue in this action was dismissed as abandoned. In March 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants Robert Slone and Mary Slone (hereinafter together the appellants), among others, to foreclose the mortgage. The appellants failed to timely appear or answer the complaint. On July 1, 2015, the plaintiff and the appellants attended the first of several mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences pursuant to
On October 23, 2017, the appellants moved pursuant to
As an initial matter, contrary to the Supreme Court‘s determination, the appellants’ failure to move to vacate their default in answering the complaint or appearing in this action did not operate as a waiver of their right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to
Here, after this action was released from the mandatory foreclosure settlement conference part in July 2016, the plaintiff was authorized to proceed with the prosecution of this action. However, despite the fact that the appellants failed to answer or otherwise appear in the action after being served with process, the plaintiff took no steps to initiate proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against the appellants. The plaintiff‘s participation in the mandatory foreclosure settlement part conferences did not constitute the initiation of proceedings for the entry of a default judgment. Moreover, more than one year passed from the time that the plaintiff was authorized to resume prosecution of this action prior to the appellants moving in October 2017 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 145 AD3d 669; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Dorvelus, 140 AD3d 850, 852). In light of the plaintiff‘s failure to meet its burden to show sufficient cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as abandoned, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether the plaintiff demonstrated that it had a potentially meritorious cause of action (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Dorvelus, 140 AD3d at 852).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellants’ motion pursuant to
The appellants’ remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination or are not properly before us.
AUSTIN, J.P., MILLER, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
