The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals both refused to address the case as presented to the court by the Plaintiff on October 26, 2009, ...
going as far as making up a fact (October 17, 2012 comes after October 26, 2012)
to avoid one procedural due process trap
That trap was, if the court limits itself to that record,
the case was abandoned by the time (Oct 2009) the Plaintiff filed/served the first action in a case where the Plaintiff later repeatedly swore Defendant had not appeared. .
The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals both snuck in a little gem that can only be interpreted as ....
The Appellant had an atty who appeared (by way of Plaintiff granting extension of time to answer).
The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals finding of "within a year of failing to serve an answer" is a very dodgy way of saying
You appeared, but failed to subsequently answer.
The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals artfully failed to do the math or point to the facts about appearance
Which would show that the only way to an unabandoned case by way of getting to appearing and not answering would be to go outside the record
and use proof of communication with Appellant Attorney the Plaintiff withheld from the court.
That artful avoidance of procedural due process (by way of making up a fact and hiding an necessary atty appearance)
just opened a pandora's box of other, later procedural due process issues.
In just the motion that allowed for the sale of the collateral, the Brooklyn Lyceum
--the Plaintiff withheld from the court that there was a Defendant attorney,
--that Defendant attorney was never served
the Notice of Motion for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and
-- the entities that were noticed, were noticed to appear a decade in the past, and
--the unserved notice failed to specify the statute that allowed for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.