WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Palazzollo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Palazzollo

2016 NY Slip Op 8228, 145 A.D.3d 714, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

Docket2015-12150

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8228 (WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Palazzollo) 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

WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Palazzollo, 2016 NY Slip Op 8228, 145 A.D.3d 714, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Stacy Palazzollo appeals from an order of the *715 Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered October 13, 2015, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to restore the action to active status.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to restore this action to active status after it had been marked “disposed.” Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there is no indication that the action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), and no basis for a dismissal pursuant thereto (see CPLR 3215 [c]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Traore, 139 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2016]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Gross, 139 AD3d 772, 772 [2016]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Bassett, 137 AD3d 1109 [2016]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Combs, 128 AD3d 812, 813 [2015]). Additionally, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Cerrone v North Shore—Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 134 AD3d 874, 875 [2015]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 198 [2001]). Further, no 90-day notice was served pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17, 21 [2013]), and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741, 742 [2009]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Miller, 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 defendant Stacy Palazzollo appeals from an order of the *715 Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered October 13, 2015, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to restore the action to active status.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to restore this action to active status after it had been marked “disposed.” Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there is no indication that the action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), and no basis for a dismissal pursuant thereto (see CPLR 3215 [c]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Traore, 139 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2016]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Gross, 139 AD3d 772, 772 [2016]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Bassett, 137 AD3d 1109 [2016]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Combs, 128 AD3d 812, 813 [2015]). Additionally, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Cerrone v North Shore—Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 134 AD3d 874, 875 [2015]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 198 [2001]). Further, no 90-day notice was served pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17, 21 [2013]), and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741, 742 [2009]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8228, 145 A.D.3d 714, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wm-specialty-mortgage-llc-v-palazzollo-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack