On May 20, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Poyer, 2026 NY Slip Op. 03145, reversing a dismissal for failure to prosecute because of inadequate notice, explaining:
CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with. A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met. Here, the Supreme Court was without authority to issue a 90-day notice since issue was not joined in the action.
In addition, pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him or her for unreasonably neglecting to proceed. Here, there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff was served with a written demand as required by CPLR 3216. Moreover, the conditional order of dismissal, which, in effect, served as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the Supreme Court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Further, the record demonstrates that no such motion was ever made, nor was there entry of an order of dismissal. Therefore, the action should have been restored to the active calendar without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the conditional order of dismissal.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
The post Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute Reversed Because of Inadequate Notice appeared first on Lundin PLLC.