Smith v. Sheen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Sheen

216 A.D.2d 147, 628 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6600

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

DecidedJune 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 147 (Smith v. Sheen) 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

Smith v. Sheen, 216 A.D.2d 147, 628 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered on or about April 12, 1994, as resettled by order of said court and Justice entered on or about June 30, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Schatz’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This foreclosure action lay dormant for approximately twenty years until defendant brought the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3404 and 3216 and on the ground of plaintiffs’ laches. Shortly thereafter, by a supplemental order dated May 18, 1994, the court lifted a stay imposed in 1974, which had been granted pending plaintiffs’ compliance with EPTL 13-3.5 (see, Desser v Schatz, 182 AD2d 478).

The court properly determined that Schatz could not invoke CPLR 3404 under the subject circumstances since the case had not been marked off the court’s trial calendar. Furthermore, the court properly found that it was impossible to determine whether Schatz had joined issue, a condition precedent to his making a ninety-day demand under CPLR 3216 (CPLR 3216 [b]). Finally, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances for the IAS Court to defer making a determination whether this action should be dismissed on the ground of plaintiffs’ laches and in denying this branch of the [148]*148motion without prejudice to renewal. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered on or about April 12, 1994, as resettled by order of said court and Justice entered on or about June 30, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Schatz’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This foreclosure action lay dormant for approximately twenty years until defendant brought the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3404 and 3216 and on the ground of plaintiffs’ laches. Shortly thereafter, by a supplemental order dated May 18, 1994, the court lifted a stay imposed in 1974, which had been granted pending plaintiffs’ compliance with EPTL 13-3.5 (see, Desser v Schatz, 182 AD2d 478).

The court properly determined that Schatz could not invoke CPLR 3404 under the subject circumstances since the case had not been marked off the court’s trial calendar. Furthermore, the court properly found that it was impossible to determine whether Schatz had joined issue, a condition precedent to his making a ninety-day demand under CPLR 3216 (CPLR 3216 [b]). Finally, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances for the IAS Court to defer making a determination whether this action should be dismissed on the ground of plaintiffs’ laches and in denying this branch of the [148]*148motion without prejudice to renewal. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 147, 628 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-sheen-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack