When it seemed clear from the law, case law and the facts, that the foreclosure was abandoned, a motion was made to dismiss a foreclosure in its entirety under a law that specifically detailed how, and when, the court must dismiss a case as abandoned. That law is CPLR 3215(c)

Put quite simply, the defendant has a certain amount of time to answer. Once that time to answer has expired (the Defendant has"defaulted"), the Plaintiff has one year to take some action, any action, towards a judgment of default (a decision that the defendant's time to answer had expired).

Such an action takes the form of a "Motion for default judgment and order of reference". Such a motion need not be presented to the defaulting defendant --UNLESS-- they have participated in some substantive form, that they have "appeared". If a defendant has participated/appeared, the motion must be presented to the defendant in advance, with some notice, as motions without notice never invoke the power of the court. Any decisions based on motions without notice are, void, not just voidable. That means, despite their presence on a piece of paper that may be filed with the court, such violations of statute, an jurisdiction, never have any validity and no entity is ever allowed to benefit from such a decision or act of the court.

In addition, the motion must be supported (include) a sworn under the penalty of perjury affidavit that the defendant had not appeared or interposed an answer.

The court was presented with such a motion supported by such an affidavit and the court issued a judgment of default.

After getting a Judgment of default, the Plaintiff went for the jugular, it sought, again by motion and notice and affidavit, a "judgment of foreclosure and sale".

On ??,??? Plaintiff was noticed of a motion under CPLR 3215c to dismiss the case.

On October 24, 2012, that motion was heard by the court. At that hearing the judge instructed the Plaintiff it had until ??? to present opposition to the motion and Defendant was given time to reply to the Plaintiff response.

Two days later, on October 26, 2012, the Judgment of Default was signed by the same judge and entered. That is, the judge knew full well that a challenge to the jurisdiction was present yet he proceeded prior to dealing with the challenge to the jurisdiction.

Plaintiff put in response to motion to dismiss as abandoned. Those papers included an affidavit from the former counsel for the Plaintiff (one since suspended from the practice of law for not being forthcoming to the disciplinary committee). That affidavit supported the necessary justification ("sufficient cause") to show the court how , in effect, a year since default had not actually passed as there were extensions of time given to the Defendant, undocumented extensions of time. The affidavit did, however, detail how defendant had actually appeared prior to the motion for default, a motion supported by an affidavit from said attorney that no defendant had appeared or interposed an answer.

Defendant put in a response to the Plaintiff's opposition stating that the "sufficient cause" put forth by the now suspended attorney, did not meet the threshold of decades of case law, that contested and unsubstantiated assertions by an attorney have no use.

Court then put in a decision refusing to dismiss thecase as abandoned because :

• Defendant waited too long citing caselaw : Fuentes v. Virgil
• Defendant participated too much citing caselaw : ????
• That Plaintiff has shown "sufficient cause" why the time to answer had been extended by acts of one or both parties.
  • An extension of time to answer signed by defendant only.
  • An extension of time signed by no one which is contested by Defendant.
  • "Multiple oral extensions of time to answer" to which there are no records and which is contested by Defendant.

That decision was appealed on January ??, 2013, was fully briefed on ???? and was, after dome 30 months, argued orally before the Appellate Division, Second Department on September 6, 2018.

Video HERE : ____________

Two and a half years we have been awaiting oral argument that has been fully briefed since December 2015.

That is a really long time to wait for appellate review on a simple issue.

CPLR 3215C

There must be a dispute before the court at all times.  Sounds simple, and it is.

It is so simple it is a basic tenet of the judicial system our forefathers implemented more than two centuries ago.

If one does not allege a dispute when filing the initiating papers, the power of the court is never invoked.  Simple enough.

It gets interesting when the dispute goes away during the case.

The plaintiff and the defendant could settle the case stripping the dispute and jurisdiction would go away.

The plaintiff could withdraw the complaint stripping the dispute and jurisdiction would go away.

Another way, although not the last possible way, was implemented by the New York State Legislature under CPLR 3215c where the legislature codified what circumstances of inaction are tantamount to a passive withdrawal, failing to seek a default judgment within 365 days of default.

Yup, the plaintiff can sit on its hands for 365 days after you have passed that time allotted to you to respond in some fashion to the complaint.

On the 365th day, the complaint ceases to exist and the court no longer has any power over the parties.

The history of the statute seems to go all the way back to 1869 as it mirrors the Supreme Court Case of Ex Parte Mccardle.

That decision references THE basic tenet of jurisdiction. No dispute=No Jurisdiction.

We are still the people, but "We, the People", have gotten lazy.

And, some of the people who were not originally intended as "We, the People", are rightfully pissed.

Let us state right up front that the people who wrote the founding documents of this federation of independent states, were White, Male, Landowning, Protestant, slave owning bastards who wrote up a government for themselves and people like them.

Others were not likely to be protected as noted by Washington himself after the Revolution with regards to one nearly tolerable other group, Catholics:

As mankind become more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. And I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their government; or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.

Quite the admission there that some are less equal to others.

But that does not negate in any way the beauty, power, and resiliency of the system they wrote.

The tools that make up that system have a history that instructs on their power and use.  

We should all master them to thwart those who would sully the country with attempts to limit those documents outside the ways listed in the documents on how to change the documents. 

Let me preface this part with the statement that there are many, many uses for Flask.  We will address it as a content server with some presentation things along the way.

Consider this a bare bones tutorial of how to build a website in Flask.

Essentially, Flask is a set of tools written mostly in the Python programming language which is itself is a set of tools.

Chew on that for a moment.  A set of tools built on top (or incorporating as their building blocks) a set of tools.

Flask uses the Python tool set, the Flask tool set and hundreds of task specific tool sets also written mostly in Python.

Sounds complicated.  But it really isn't that bad.  It is very powerful , and, in contradiction to Django (also python) and Ruby (not Python), Flask imposes very few restrictions.  You get to choose how dangerously you want to live.  As a result, you get incredible flexibility of your own choosing.  The downside is flexibility comes with some additional complexity cost.  Knowledge of that additional complexity will make you capable of much more than other solutions.

If you are using PHP, well, we can't cure you, but take a look at the Flask medicine.

So get buckled in and walk with us through this project.  Lets learn some Flask!

Is a trademark of a place valid in the United States? We think not (it sure isn't in Britain as Canary Wharf Apartments learned).

Did William J. Thomashower overplay his hand ? We think he did in a few ways.

This simple T-Shirt design by roxysteeparlour.com has been attacked by William J. Thomashower on behalf of the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation.

First etsy.com and then amazon.com bowed to his will.

They covered their corporate behinds but there remains the Battle of the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

THE GROWLER: a years late followup to some heated discussions about the future of journalism ...

which led to a process diagram sketched on the back of an envelope that was promptly ignored for years.

Then a media echo chamber of silliness effectively cauterized a Democratic-leaning populace into a zombie-like apathy at the polls.

Not only must objective critical analysis occur (whether or not we call it journalism), that work needs to be given a fertile and sustainable soil from which to spring.

The Growler is that soil.

Read on to see what we want to become.