From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

R.L.C. Investors, Inc. v. Zabski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 1, 1985
109 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 1, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Murphy, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Green and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, with costs to appellants, and appellants' motion granted. Memorandum: In this mortgage foreclosure action, Special Term erred in denying the motion of defendant Conway, obligor on the mortgage jointly with defendant Zabski, to reopen or vacate the default and set aside the foreclosure sale of the property to plaintiff, the mortgagee. Although plaintiff performed the mailing and delivery requirements for service on defendant Conway under CPLR 308 (2), it did not complete service by filing until the default judgment had already been taken. Until service was complete, defendant Conway's time to appear or answer did not begin to run ( see, CPLR 320 [a]; 3012 [c]); thus, she was not in default at the time the default judgment was taken and the judgment is a nullity ( see, Marazita v. Nelbach, 91 A.D.2d 604; Reporter Co. v. Tomicki, 60 A.D.2d 947; Red Creek Natl. Bank v Blue Star Ranch, 58 A.D.2d 983; McLaughlin, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, 1984-1985 Pocket Part, CPLR C308:2, p 172). We find no merit to plaintiff's contention that limited informal contacts with plaintiff by an attorney on behalf of defendant Conway in an effort to settle the matter out of court constitute an "appearance" such that defendant Conway may be said to have waived the defect in service ( see generally, CPLR 320 [a]; Matter of Jones v. Coughlin, 87 A.D.2d 953, 954; Matter of Katz, 81 A.D.2d 145, affd 55 N.Y.2d 904; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR C320:2, pp 363-364; McLaughlin, Supplementary Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, 1984-1985 Pocket Part, CPLR C320:2, p 246). In the interest of justice, we exercise our discretion to open the default against defendant Zabski as well. Accordingly, the judgment of foreclosure and all proceedings herein taken thereafter are vacated and plaintiff's cross motion for an order directing a determination of the deficiency is denied.


Summaries of

R.L.C. Investors, Inc. v. Zabski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 1, 1985
109 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

R.L.C. Investors, Inc. v. Zabski

Case Details

Full title:R.L.C. INVESTORS, INC., Respondent, v. PAULINE ZABSKI et al., Appellants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Valencia v. Astro Datsun, Inc.

Ordered that the order is modified by increasing the amount of the sanction to $750; as so modified, the…

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cofield

By granting plaintiff relief nunc pro tunc Supreme Court not only gave plaintiff a remedy, but made that…