115-41 St. Albans Holding Corp. v Estate of Harrison
2010 NY Slip Op 01774 [71 AD3d 653]
March 2, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010


115-41 St. Albans Holding Corp., Appellant,
v
Estate ofMuriel V. Harrison et al., Defendants, and Town House St., LLC,Respondent.

[*1]Busson & Sikorski, New York, N.Y. (Robert S. Sikorski of counsel), for appellant.

Borchert, Genovesi, LaSpina & Landicino, P.C., Whitestone, N.Y. (Helmut Borchert andRobert Frommer of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated September 19, 2008, which, inter alia, denied its motionfor summary judgment on the complaint and granted the cross motion of the defendant TownHouse St., LLC, to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) asabandoned.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendant Town House St., LLC (hereinafter the defendant) served a notice ofappearance, it did not serve a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3011). Consequently, issuewas not joined, and the plaintiff was barred from seeking summary judgment (see CPLR3212 [a]; Alexandru v Pappas, 68AD3d 690, 691 [2009]; UnionTurnpike Assoc., LLC v Getty Realty Corp., 27 AD3d 725, 727 [2006]).

To avoid dismissal of the action as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), the plaintiff wasrequired to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment and ameritorious cause of action (seeSicurella v 111 Chelsea, LLC, 67 AD3d 996 [2009]; Butindaro v Grinberg, 57 AD3d 932, 932-933 [2008]; Staples v Jeff Hunt Devs., Inc., 56AD3d 459, 460 [2008]; DuBois vRoslyn Natl. Mtge. Corp., 52 AD3d 564, 565 [2008]; County of Nassau v Chmela, 45 AD3d722 [2007]; Durr v New YorkCommunity Hosp., 43 AD3d 388, 389 [2007]; Iskhakova v Klages, 37 AD3d 542 [2007]). The plaintiff failed tooffer a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment after the defendant failed toserve a responsive pleading. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant'scross motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against it asabandoned. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.