U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. RickettsU.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Ricketts
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY (David V. Mignardi of counsel), for appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 30, 2015, as denied those branches of its motion which were to vacate an order of the same court dated March 4, 2014, conditionally dismissing the action pursuant to
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff‘s motion which were to vacate the order dated March 4, 2014, conditionally dismissing the action pursuant to
The plaintiff commenced this action in August 2009 to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants did not appear in the action or answer the complaint. The plaintiff moved for an order of reference, which the Supreme Court granted in April 2011. Thereafter, on two separate occasions, in March 2013 and August 2013, the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, but both motions were marked off the calendar due to
Subsequently, by order dated March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the action pursuant to
In September 2014, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate the conditional order of dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar. In an order dated July 30, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff‘s motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to present a reasonable excuse for not complying with the conditional 90-day order to dismiss and that the delay since the time that the referee was appointed was substantial. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as denied those branches of its motion which were to vacate the conditional order of dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar.
Statutory
Although the plaintiff did not raise, until its reply papers, the argument that this action was improperly dismissed pursuant to
Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly denied those branches of the plaintiff‘s motion which were to vacate the
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff‘s remaining contentions.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court