Klein v. St. Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Klein v. St. Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Bank of Am., N.A. v. Lucido, 2018 NY Slip Op 5130 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 712 Denial of default judgment and abandonment of action7 citing casesdismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination…opening of page *712 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 6 listed here
  • Bank of Am., N.A. v. Lucido, 2018 NY Slip Op 5130 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
    Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 AD3d at 712).
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mayen, 155 A.D.3d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 AD3d at 712).
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Daskal, 142 A.D.3d 1071 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published 2 cites
    Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 AD3d at 712) and demonstrated that it did not abandon the action (s ee Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Gross, 139 AD3d 772 [2016]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Poku, 118 AD3d 980 , 982 [2014]; Jones v Fuentes, 103 AD3d 853 [2013]).
  • HSBC Bank USA v. Traore, 139 A.D.3d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 AD3d at 712).
  • US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Dorestant, 131 A.D.3d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 AD3d at 712).
  • Emigrant Mtge. Co. v. Gosdin, 119 A.D.3d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 AD3d at 712).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Klein
v.
St. Cyprian Properties, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 14, 2012.
Published opinion
100 A.D.3d 711
Published

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated July 11, 2011, which denied his motion for a default judgment of foreclosure and sale and, in effect, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant St. Cyprian Properties, Inc., which was pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the cross motion of the defendant St. Cyprian Properties, Inc., which was pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to[*712] dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiffs motion for a default judgment of foreclosure and sale and of that branch of the cross motion of the defendant St. Cyprian Properties, Inc., which was to extend its time to answer the complaint.

On July 15, 2008, the plaintiff commenced this action against several defendants, including the defendant St. Cyprian Properties, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant). The defendant failed to answer, appear, or move with respect to the complaint, and in September 2008, the plaintiff moved for an order of reference pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1321 (1). The Supreme Court granted the motion and signed the order of reference on February 23, 2010, nearly 18 months later. The Referee issued a report dated June 14, 2010. In July 2010, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment of foreclosure and sale. In response, the defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned, or alternatively, to extend its time to answer the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs motion for a default judgment of foreclosure and sale on the ground that he failed to comply with CPLR 3215 (c) and, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned.

In September 2008, when the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321 [1]), he initiated proceedings for entry of the default judgment of foreclosure and sale within one year of the defendant’s default and, thus, did not abandon the action (see CPLR 3215 [c]; Pisciotta v Lifestyle Designs, Inc., 62 AD3d 850, 852 [2009]; Icon Equip. Distribs. v Gordon Envtl. & Mech. Corp., 272 AD2d 579 [2000]; Home Sav. of Am., F.A. v Gkanios, 230 AD2d 770 [1996]).

Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the plaintiffs motion or that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to extend its time to answer the complaint, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination on the merits of the motion and that branch of the cross motion (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Nalbandian, 89 AD3d 648, 649 [2011]). Dillon, J.P, Austin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.