U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Landman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Landman

130 A.D.3d 522, 12 N.Y.S.3d 885

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

DecidedJuly 21, 2015

Docket13455 381515/08

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.3d 522 (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Landman) 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

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Landman, 130 A.D.3d 522, 12 N.Y.S.3d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered November 13, 2013, which denied the motion of defendant Anna Landman (defendant) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This foreclosure action was stayed upon discovery that defendant mortgagee Ken Koren had died shortly before the action was filed in 2008 (see e.g. Silvagnoli v Consolidated Edison Empls. Mut. Aid Socy., 112 AD2d 819, 820 [1st Dept 1985]).

Defendant asserts that the action should have been dismissed because of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. However, plaintiff commenced proceedings in Surrogate’s Court for letters of administration in 2010 and while it was necessary to serve supplemental pleadings upon the discovery of relatives of Koren, plaintiff did so in a timely fashion. The only delay since 2012 has been for the Surrogate’s Court to rule, and such delay cannot be attributed to plaintiff. Furthermore, defendant failed to comply with the 90-day demand provision of CPLR 3216.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Renwick and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered November 13, 2013, which denied the motion of defendant Anna Landman (defendant) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This foreclosure action was stayed upon discovery that defendant mortgagee Ken Koren had died shortly before the action was filed in 2008 (see e.g. Silvagnoli v Consolidated Edison Empls. Mut. Aid Socy., 112 AD2d 819, 820 [1st Dept 1985]).

Defendant asserts that the action should have been dismissed because of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. However, plaintiff commenced proceedings in Surrogate’s Court for letters of administration in 2010 and while it was necessary to serve supplemental pleadings upon the discovery of relatives of Koren, plaintiff did so in a timely fashion. The only delay since 2012 has been for the Surrogate’s Court to rule, and such delay cannot be attributed to plaintiff. Furthermore, defendant failed to comply with the 90-day demand provision of CPLR 3216.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Renwick and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 522, 12 N.Y.S.3d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-na-v-landman-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack