Rols Capital Co. v. Beeten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rols Capital Co. v. Beeten

264 A.D.2d 724, 696 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9061

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 724 (Rols Capital Co. v. Beeten) 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

Rols Capital Co. v. Beeten, 264 A.D.2d 724, 696 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

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, Rock-land County (Bergerman, J.), entered April 29, 1998, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint against the defendants Karin Beeten, Craig Beeten, Lawrence Leder, and Carole Leder, and to strike their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants Karin Beeten, Craig Beeten, Lawrence Leder, and Carole Leder (hereinafter the respondents) were originally named as parties when the plaintiff commenced this action. However, in an order dated June 5, 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed the action against them upon a finding that they had not been properly served with process and that jurisdiction had thus not been acquired over them. No question as to the propriety of the June 5, 1997, order is before this Court on this appeal.

We conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the respondents. The plaintiff’s service upon the respondents of a new summons with the original complaint under the original index number, without leave and without having filed the supplemental summons with the clerk of the court, was ineffective to either join the respondents to the pending action or to commence a new action against them (see, CPLR 304, 305, 306-a, 1003).

Furthermore, the six-year Statute of Limitations bars the commencement of a new action against the respondents (see, CPLR 213 [4]), since the plaintiff’s cause of action for foreclosure accrued on May 28, 1987. It is irrelevant that there remained pending a valid action against other defendants purported to have potential claims in the mortgaged premises. It has not been claimed and does not appear that any of those defendants were united in interest with any of the respondents (see, CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177-182; Mondello v New York Blood Ctr. — Greater N. Y. Blood Program, 80 NY2d 219, 226).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Bergerman, J.), entered April 29, 1998, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint against the defendants Karin Beeten, Craig Beeten, Lawrence Leder, and Carole Leder, and to strike their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants Karin Beeten, Craig Beeten, Lawrence Leder, and Carole Leder (hereinafter the respondents) were originally named as parties when the plaintiff commenced this action. However, in an order dated June 5, 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed the action against them upon a finding that they had not been properly served with process and that jurisdiction had thus not been acquired over them. No question as to the propriety of the June 5, 1997, order is before this Court on this appeal.

We conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the respondents. The plaintiff’s service upon the respondents of a new summons with the original complaint under the original index number, without leave and without having filed the supplemental summons with the clerk of the court, was ineffective to either join the respondents to the pending action or to commence a new action against them (see, CPLR 304, 305, 306-a, 1003).

Furthermore, the six-year Statute of Limitations bars the commencement of a new action against the respondents (see, CPLR 213 [4]), since the plaintiff’s cause of action for foreclosure accrued on May 28, 1987. It is irrelevant that there remained pending a valid action against other defendants purported to have potential claims in the mortgaged premises. It has not been claimed and does not appear that any of those defendants were united in interest with any of the respondents (see, CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177-182; Mondello v New York Blood Ctr. — Greater N. Y. Blood Program, 80 NY2d 219, 226).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 724, 696 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rols-capital-co-v-beeten-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack