| First United Mtge. Banking Corp. v Lawani |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01184 [147 AD3d 912] |
| February 15, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| First United Mortgage Banking Corp.,Appellant, v Frederick Lawani et al., Defendants. |
Borchert & LaSpina, P.C., Whitestone, NY (Helmut Borchert and Robert W. Frommerof counsel), for appellant.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated May 27, 2014, which (1) denied its unopposed motion foran order of reference, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants upon theirfailure to appear or answer the complaint, and to amend the caption, and (2), sua sponte, directedthe dismissal of the complaint.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as,sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint is deemed to be an application for leave toappeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]);and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matteris remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewithbefore a different Justice.
In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's unopposedmotion, inter alia, for an order of reference and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of thecomplaint. According to the order appealed from, the court conducted an independent Internetinvestigation of certain records and digital tax maps purportedly maintained by, among others,the New York City Department of Finance. Based upon the court's research, and without citing toany legal authority, the court concluded that certain discrepancies warranted dismissal of theaction.
The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint. "A court'spower to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinarycircumstances exist to warrant dismissal" (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Emmanuel, 83 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2011]; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vMartin, 134 AD3d 665 [2015]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Wong, 132 AD3d 825 [2015]; FCDB FF1 2008-1 Trust v Videjus,131 AD3d 1004 [2015]). Here, the court was not presented with any extraordinarycircumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. We caution that a dismissalbased almost entirely upon an independent Internet investigation, especially one conductedwithout providing notice or an opportunity to be heard by [*2]anyparty, is improper and should not be repeated (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Taher, 104 AD3d 815, 818 [2013]).Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter tothe Supreme Court, Kings County, before a difference Justice, for further proceedings on thecomplaint, including a determination on the merits of the subject motion. Rivera, J.P., Roman,Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.