New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. v. Dasdemir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. v. Dasdemir

116 A.D.3d 679, 985 N.Y.S.2d 86

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 2, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 679 (New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. v. Dasdemir) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. v. Dasdemir, 116 A.D.3d 679, 985 N.Y.S.2d 86 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated December 19, 2012, as, upon granting its motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to discontinue the action, did so “with prejudice.”

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the discontinuance of the action is “without prejudice.”

In general, absent a showing of special circumstances, including prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant or other improper consequences, a motion for a voluntary discontinuance should be granted without prejudice (see CPLR 3217 [c]; Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383-384 [1982]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Roberson, 114 AD3d 821 [2014]; Wells Fargo Bank, [680]*680N.A. v Chaplin, 107 AD3d 881, 883 [2013]; Blackwell v Mikevin Mgt. III, LLC, 88 AD3d 836, 837 [2011]). Here, there was no showing of any such special circumstances. Contrary to the respondents’ contention, there is no evidence in the record that the action was settled, discontinued, or dismissed on the merits (see generally Matter of AutoOne Ins. Co. v Valentine, 72 AD3d 953, 955 [2010]). Rather, it is undisputed that the settlement reached by the parties was a forbearance agreement. Accordingly, the action should have been discontinued without prejudice. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 37 Misc 3d 1226(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 52186(C).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated December 19, 2012, as, upon granting its motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to discontinue the action, did so “with prejudice.”

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the discontinuance of the action is “without prejudice.”

In general, absent a showing of special circumstances, including prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant or other improper consequences, a motion for a voluntary discontinuance should be granted without prejudice (see CPLR 3217 [c]; Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383-384 [1982]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Roberson, 114 AD3d 821 [2014]; Wells Fargo Bank, [680]*680N.A. v Chaplin, 107 AD3d 881, 883 [2013]; Blackwell v Mikevin Mgt. III, LLC, 88 AD3d 836, 837 [2011]). Here, there was no showing of any such special circumstances. Contrary to the respondents’ contention, there is no evidence in the record that the action was settled, discontinued, or dismissed on the merits (see generally Matter of AutoOne Ins. Co. v Valentine, 72 AD3d 953, 955 [2010]). Rather, it is undisputed that the settlement reached by the parties was a forbearance agreement. Accordingly, the action should have been discontinued without prejudice. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 37 Misc 3d 1226(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 52186(C).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 679, 985 N.Y.S.2d 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-mortgage-trust-inc-v-dasdemir-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack