Doulos v. Vader Servicing, LLC
This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 31010(U) (Doulos v. Vader Servicing, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Doulos v Vader Servicing, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 31010(U) March 16, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653810/2023 Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6538102023.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/24/2026 3:45:48 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 02:45 PM INDEX NO. 653810/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 42M ---------------------X. ERi DOULOS, INDEX NO. 653810/2023
Plaintiff, 06/06/2025, MOTION DATE 08/04/2025 - V -
VADER SERVICING, LLC D/8/A, VADER MOUNTAIN MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 005 CAPITAL,
Defendant. DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION ---------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,45,52,53,54 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 49, 50, 51 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
APPEARANCES:
Eri Doulos, self-represented plaintiff.
HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA, J.S.C.
On January 10, 2025, this Court granted the order to show
cause (mot. seq. no. 03) of non-party movant Victor M. Feraru,
Esq. to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff ERI DOULOS (see New
York State Court Electronic Filing System [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 35,
decision and order, dated January 10, 2026). Therein, this
Court stayed the instant action for a period of 60 days to allow
plaintiff ERI DOULOS sufficient time to retain new counsel (see
id.). Plaintiff failed to do so.
653810/2023 DOULOS, ERi vs. VADER SERVICING, LLC D/B/A, VADER MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 004 005
[* 1] 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 02:45 PM INDEX NO. 653810/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
Plaintiff, now self-represented, moves (mot. seq. no. 04)
(1) for an order dismissing this action without prejudice
pursuant to CPLR § 3217 (b); and (2) for a stay of all
collections and lien efforts for 30 days by defendant VADER
SERVICING, LLC D/B/A VADER MOUNTAIN CAPITAL pursuant to
CPLR § 2201 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 39, notice of motion).
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a second motion (seq. no. OS)
seeking relief identical to that requested in motion sequence
number 04.
Defendant VADER SERVICING, LLC D/B/A VADER MOUNTAIN CAPITAL
does not appear or oppose the motions.
An action may be discontinued upon order of the court and
upon terms and conditions, as the court deems proper, before the
cause has been submitted to the court or jury to determine the
facts (see CPLR § 3217 [b]). "A stipulation signed by all
[parties] is not required where a court order [CPLR § 3217 (b}]
is sought" (Shepherd v Workmen's Circle Multicare Ctr., 224 AD3d
485 [1st Dept 2024]). "While the authority of a court to grant
or to deny an application made to it pursuant to CPLR § 3217
(subd [b]} by a party seeking voluntarily to discontinue
litigation is within its sound discretion, ordinarily a party
cannot be compelled to litigate and, absent special
circumstances, discontinuance should be granted" (Tucker v
Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 382 [1982]; see Bank of Am., Nat. Ass'n v 653810/2023 DOULOS, ERi vs. VADER SERVICING, LLC D/B/A, VADER MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, Page 2of4 Motion No. 004 005
[* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 02:45 PM INDEX NO. 653810/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
Douglas, 110 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2013) [noting that prejudice to
adverse parties constitutes special circumstances]; Burnham
Serv. Corp. v National Council on Compensation Ins., 288 AD2d 31
[1st Dept 2001)).
No party has opposed the instant motion seeking leave
voluntarily to discontinue the action against defendant, nor do
any special circumstances exist here (see Bank of Am., Nat.
Ass'n, 110 AD3d at 452). Therefore, the discontinuance is
granted.
However, a stay may only be granted in an action that is
pending (see CPLR § 2201 ["the court in which an action is
pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon
such terms as may be just"] [emphasis added]). Given that this
action is discontinued, the Court cannot grant a stay of
collections and lien efforts by defendant.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (seq. no. 04) to
discontinue this action pursuant to CPLR § 3217 (b) is granted
without opposition; it is further
ORDERED that the instant action is dismissed without
prejudice; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (seq. no. 04) to stay all
653810/2023 DOULOS, ERi vs. VADER SERVICING, LLC D/8/A, VADER MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, Page 3 of4 Motion No. 004 005
[* 3] 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 02:45 PM INDEX NO. 653810/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
SERVICING, LLC D/B/A VADER MOUNTAIN CAPITAL is denied; it is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (seq. no. 05) is dismissed,
as moot; and it is further
ORDERD that the Clerk of Court shall mark the file
accordingly.
3/16/2026 DATE e♦~~~ Amffivv CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
653810/2023 DOULOS, ERi vs. VADER SERVICING, LLC D/B/A, VADER MOUNTAIN CAPITAL, Page4 of4 Motion No. 004 005
[* 4] 4 of 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 NY Slip Op 31010(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doulos-v-vader-servicing-llc-nysupctnewyork-2026.