Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Sanchez
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 06155Docket: 2020-02636
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 2, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of U.S. Bank N.A. v. Sanchez, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reviewed two orders related to a mortgage foreclosure action. The first order, dated May 22, 2014, denied U.S. Bank’s motion to vacate a prior order from September 24, 2013, which had dismissed the complaint due to the bank's failure to comply with a previous court directive. The second order, from December 14, 2015, denied the bank's subsequent motion for leave to renew its prior motion to vacate. The appellate court reversed the May 22, 2014 order, granting the bank's motion to vacate the September 24, 2013 dismissal and to restore the case to the active calendar. The court dismissed the appeal from the December 14, 2015 order as academic due to this ruling, awarding one bill of costs to the plaintiff. The background involves the defendant, Carlos Sanchez, who allegedly executed a mortgage note in April 2006. U.S. Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings in March 2008. A 2013 order found Sanchez had defaulted, requiring the bank to seek foreclosure judgment within 90 days, failing which the complaint was dismissed. The appellate court noted that the Supreme Court had incorrectly stated that issues had been joined since none of the defendants had submitted an answer, which is a prerequisite for dismissal under CPLR 3216. At least one precondition outlined in CPLR 3216 was not satisfied, rendering the court unable to dismiss the complaint under this statute. Although the plaintiff raised this argument for the first time on appeal, the court considered it because it pertains to a legal question evident in the record that could not have been overlooked if it had been presented earlier. The defendant's other arguments were found to lack merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have approved the plaintiff's motion to vacate the September 24, 2013 order and restore the case to the active calendar. As a result, the appeal from the December 14, 2015 order is deemed academic. Judges Brathwaite Nelson, Miller, Genovesi, and Warhit concurred with this decision. Maria T. Fasulo serves as the Clerk of the Court.