On July 29, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Rosenblatt, 2026 NY Slip Op. 04788, holding that an action should have been dismissed because of the plaintiff’s failure to seek a default judgment within one year of the defendant’s default, explaining:
The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1 insofar as asserted against them as abandoned. Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), if the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed. It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). Rather, as long as proceedings are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case should not be subject to dismissal.
Here, the defendants were served by the affix and mail method pursuant to CPLR 308(4). The affidavits of service were filed on October 22, 2009, and service became complete 10 days later, on November 1, 2009. The defendants’ answer was due 30 days later, on December 1, 2009. Thus, the plaintiff had until December 1, 2010, to take proceedings toward the entry of judgment in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The record indicates that the plaintiff took no action in this case until it moved for a default judgment and simultaneously filed the RJI on March 14, 2014, over three years after its time to take proceedings expired. Although the time to take proceedings is tolled during settlement negotiations pursuant to CPLR 3408, here, the settlement negotiations did not begin until more than three years after the time to take proceedings had expired.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).