Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BSD 253, LLC, respondent, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, etc., appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), dated March 24, 2021. The order denied the defendant's motion for leave to renew the plaintiff's unopposed motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court (Paul Wooten, J.) dated February 16, 2018.
ORDERED that the order dated March 24, 2021, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage on certain real property located in Brooklyn. After issue was joined, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint. By order dated February 16, 2018, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the plaintiff's motion upon the defendant's failure to file opposition papers. The defendant thereafter moved for leave to renew the plaintiff's unopposed motion. By order dated March 24, 2021, the court denied the defendant's motion for leave to renew. The defendant appeals.
The defendant's motion for leave to renew was properly denied, as there was no opposition to the plaintiff's motion that could have been renewed (see Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Bomba, 149 A.D.3d 704, 705, 51 N.Y.S.3d 570; Dobbyn–Blackmore v. City of New York, 123 A.D.3d 1083, 1 N.Y.S.3d 193). The proper procedure to cure a default in opposing a motion is to move pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the default, and, if necessary, to appeal from any denial of that motion (see Matter of Renner v. Costigan, 125 A.D.3d 664, 665, 4 N.Y.S.3d 53; Dobbyn–Blackmore v. City of New York, 123 A.D.3d 1083, 1 N.Y.S.3d 193). The defendant, in fact, sought relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), in a separate motion, which was denied in an order that is the subject of a separate appeal (see BSD 253, LLC v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2023 WL 5598574 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2021–06295; decided herewith]).
IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and WAN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2021–03892
Decided: August 30, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)