Hyperlawhypertext legal database WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Palazzollo 145 A.D.3d 714

← Cases

WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Palazzollo

145 A.D.3d 714 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2016-12-07 English

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

Contents

Majority

p. 714
WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC, Respondent, v Frank Palazzollo et al., Defendants, and Stacy Palazzollo, Appellant.
[41 NYS3d 899]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Stacy Palazzollo appeals from an order of the

p. 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.

Cases cited