Opinion
2017–00543 Index No. 15803/09
05-29-2019
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, etc., Respondent, v. Rani KAUR, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Miller Rosado & Algios, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Christopher Rosado of counsel), for appellant. McCabe Weisberg & Conway, P.C. (Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Marissa Banez ], of counsel), for respondent.
Miller Rosado & Algios, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Christopher Rosado of counsel), for appellant.
McCabe Weisberg & Conway, P.C. (Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Marissa Banez ], of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Rani Kaur appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), dated November 1, 2016. The order granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the active calendar and denied that defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, or, in the alternative, to toll and cancel the accrual of interest on the mortgage loan.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the active calendar. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see WM Specialty Mtge., LLC v. Palazzollo, 145 A.D.3d 714, 715, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899 ; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mehrnia, 143 A.D.3d 946, 947, 39 N.Y.S.3d 801 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Arden, 140 A.D.3d 1099, 1100, 35 N.Y.S.3d 388 ; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 198, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). Further, there was neither a 90–day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Ricketts, 153 A.D.3d 1298, 1299, 61 N.Y.S.3d 571 ; New Century Mtge. Corp. v. Davis, 153 A.D.3d 927, 927, 60 N.Y.S.3d 435 ; Downey Sav. & Loan Assn., F.A. v. Aribisala, 147 A.D.3d 911, 912, 47 N.Y.S.3d 413 ), nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Madero, 154 A.D.3d 795, 795, 61 N.Y.S.3d 504 ; WM Specialty Mtge., LLC v. Palazzollo, 145 A.D.3d at 715, 41 N.Y.S.3d 899 ; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mehrnia, 143 A.D.3d at 947, 39 N.Y.S.3d 801 ).
Contrary to the contention of the defendant Rani Kaur (hereinafter the defendant), " ‘[t]he doctrine of laches does not provide [a] basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90–day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), and where the case management devices of CPLR 3404 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 are inapplicable’ " ( Melendez v. Plato Gen. Contr., 128 A.D.3d 653, 654, 9 N.Y.S.3d 581, quoting Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 17, 20, 970 N.Y.S.2d 229 ; see Montalvo v. Mumpus Restorations, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 974 N.Y.S.2d 87 ). The "procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90–day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)" ( Campbell v. New York City Tr. Auth., 109 A.D.3d 455, 455, 970 N.Y.S.2d 284 ; see Chase v. Scavuzzo, 87 N.Y.2d 228, 233, 638 N.Y.S.2d 587, 661 N.E.2d 1368 ; Airmont Homes v. Town of Ramapo, 69 N.Y.2d 901, 902, 516 N.Y.S.2d 193, 508 N.E.2d 927 ; Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d at 20, 970 N.Y.S.2d 229 ; Baxter v. Javier, 109 A.D.3d 493, 494, 970 N.Y.S.2d 567 ).
"A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court" ( Rajic v. Faust, 165 A.D.3d 716, 717, 85 N.Y.S.3d 470 [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]; see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Losner, 145 A.D.3d 935, 937, 44 N.Y.S.3d 467 ). "Once equity is invoked, the court's power is as broad as equity and justice require" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v. Losner, 145 A.D.3d at 938, 44 N.Y.S.3d 467 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). "In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court's discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party" ( BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Jackson, 159 A.D.3d 861, 862, 74 N.Y.S.3d 59 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Vidaurre, 155 A.D.3d 934, 934, 65 N.Y.S.3d 237 ). Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to toll and cancel interest that accrued on the mortgage loan, as the defendant could have filed a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3402(a) and requested a hearing to determine the propriety of service pursuant to the court's earlier order, but chose not to.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.