UNITED COMPANIES LENDING CORPORATION v. CANDELA (2004)

 Following our decision that, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on liability in this mortgage foreclosure action (United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Candela, 292 A.D.2d 800, 740 N.Y.S.2d 543), plaintiff inadvertently allowed the notice of pendency to expire without moving for an extension.   When plaintiff sought to file a second notice of pendency in the office of the Clerk of Onondaga County, that notice was rejected, and Supreme Court thereafter denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second notice of pendency.   As we recently held in Atlantic Mtge. & Inv. Corp. v. Wynn, 8 A.D.3d 1114, 778 N.Y.S.2d 638, the filing of successive notices of pendency is permissible in mortgage foreclosure actions (see Horowitz v. Griggs, 2 A.D.3d 404, 767 N.Y.S.2d 860;  Campbell v. Smith, 309 A.D.2d 581, 768 N.Y.S.2d 182;  cf. Matter of Sakow, 97 N.Y.2d 436, 741 N.Y.S.2d 175, 767 N.E.2d 666).   We therefore reverse the order and grant plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second notice of pendency.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.

MEMORANDUM: