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.
Elliot ZARETSKY, et al., appellants, v. OK HUI KIM, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 7, 2003, as, in effect, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ok Hui Kim and Ki Won Kim which was to deem the action abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 on the ground that they failed to settle a judgment within 60 days.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to deem the action abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 on the ground that the appellants failed to settle the judgment within 60 days is denied, and the action is reinstated.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage. After years of litigation, the Supreme Court held that the defendants Ok Hui Kim and Ki Won Kim defaulted on the mortgage and the plaintiffs were directed, by order dated July 9, 2001, to settle a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The plaintiffs failed to settle a judgment within 60 days of the signing and filing of the order (see 22 NYCRR 202.48[a] ).
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion, in effect, by granting that branch of the motion of the defendants Ok Hui Kim and Ki Won Kim which was to deem the action abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 on the ground that the plaintiffs' failed to settle a judgment within 60 days. This result “ ‘would not bring the repose to court proceedings that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was designed to effectuate, and would waste judicial resources' ” (Matter of Argento v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 269 A.D.2d 443, 444, 702 N.Y.S.2d 899; quoting Meany v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 239 A.D.2d 393, 394, 658 N.Y.S.2d 338; see Russo v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 355, 356, 614 N.Y.S.2d 55). In addition, under the particular circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs were entitled to settle the judgment nunc pro tunc.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination.
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.
Decided: April 11, 2005
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)