Preview
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM INDEX NO. 710869/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023
Short Form Order
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT — QUEENS COUNTY
FILED
Present: HONORABLE MAURICE E. MUIR 8/28/2023
Justice COUNTY CLE
QUEENS COUNTY
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, IAS Part - 42
Plaintiff, Index No.: 710869/2021
-against- Motion Date: 5/26/22
JAMES CHEESEMAN, CONSTANCE CHEESEMAN, Motion Cal. No. 14
CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PARKING VIOLATIONS Motion Seq. No. 4
BUREAU
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE #1 through #7, the last
even (7) names being fictitious and unknown to the
plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the
tenants, occupants, persons or parties, if any, having
or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged
premises described in the Complaint,
Defendants.
The following electronically filed (“EF”) documents read on this motion by JPMorgan
Chase Bank, National Association (“Chase Bank” or “plaintiff”) for an order restoring this
matter to the Court’s calendar together with such other and further relief as to the Court may
deem just and proper. Moreover, James Cheeseman (“Mr. Cheeseman”) cross moves for an
order substituting James Cheeseman, as Administrator of the Estate of Constance Cheeseman in
the place and stead of Constance Cheeseman together with such further and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Papers
Numbered
Notice of Motion-Affirmation-Exhibits-Service . EF 08-19
Notice of Cross Motion-Memo of Law in Opposition/Support-Exhibit: EF 21-31
1 of 6
1 of 6
INDEX NO. 710869/2021
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023
Affirmation in Opposition Cross Motion-Exhibits... EF 33 - 46
Amended Affirmation in Opposition Cross Motion-E: its. EF 47 - 59
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross Motion. .. EF 60
Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that the motion and cross-motion are combined
herein for disposition, and determined as follows:
Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is determined as follows:
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage action. On December 18, 2008, James
Cheeseman and Constance Cheeseman (collectively, the “Cheesemans” or “mortgagors”)
executed and delivered to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as nominee
for Residential Home Funding Corp.(“RHFC”) a Mortgage ("the subject Mortgage") in the
principal sum of $351,139.00 with interest, mortgaging the subject premises known as 137 40
234th Street, Rosedale, New York 11422 ("the subject premises") as collateral security for the
Note. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that the Cheesemans defaulted on the mortgage loan by
failing to make the June 1, 2012, payment and the subsequent payments. Thereafter, on October
23, 2012, RHFC assigned the subject mortgage to Chase Bank. Moreover, on July 30, 2013, the
latter commenced the instant foreclosure action; and on or about December 18, 2014, issued was
joined wherein, the court granted the Cheesemans to interpose a late verified answer with
counterclaims. After the parties engaged in discovery, on February 22, 2017, the plaintiff filed
its note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial (“Note of Issue”), which was withdrawn on
March 27, 2017. Thereafter, on June 11, 2018, the plaintiff re-filed its note of issue. However,
on June 27, 2018, the clerk of the court returned the same and advised the plaintiff that the matter
was marked disposed. Thereafter, on November 22, 2019, Ms. Cheeseman died. Afterwards, on
March 4, 2022, the plaintiff served and filed the instant motion; and on April 7, 2022, the
Cheesemans served and filed the instant cross motion. Now, the parties seek the above-
described relief.
From the onset, the court notes that CPLR § 3404 is applicable only to cases stricken
from the trial calendar, not to those pre-note of issue cases administratively “marked off” or
“disposed” due to inactivity. (see, Kapnisakis v. Woo, 114 AD3d 729 [2d Dept 2014]; Khaolaead
v. Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 820 [2d Dept 2005]; see also Liew v. Jeffrey Samel & Partners, 149
AD3d 1059 [2d Dept 2017]; Insuasti v. La Boom Disco, Inc., 209 AD3d 725 [2d Dept 2022];
Behan v. Behan, 145 AD3d 653 [2d Dept 2016]). The Appellate Division, Second Department,
2 of 6
2 of 6
INDEX NO. 710869/2021
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023
has repeatedly declared that administratively purging pre-note of issue cases, without the service
of a 90-day written demand or an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, “is not permitted” and
should not be deemed a dismissal of the action (see, Bilkho v. Roosevelt Square, LLC, 157 AD3d
849 [2d Dept 2018]; Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17 [2d Dept 2013];
Wynn v. Wynn-Wright, 201 AD3d 1017 [2d Dept 2022]). Here, the court’s “disposed”
marking is tantamount to a purge or mark off of a pre-note of issue case, which is impermissible.
(see Khaolaead v. Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 820 [2d Dept 2005]). In fact, in light of the fact that
this action was never properly dismissed, there is no need for a motion to restore. (Ryskin v.
Corniel, 181 AD3d 742 [2d Dept 2020] citing Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110
AD3d 17 [2d Dept 2013]; Insuasti v. La Boom Disco, Inc., 209 AD3d 725 [2d Dept 2022]). As
such, the plaintiffs motion to restore this action tor the active calendar is granted.
However, the court denies that branch of the defendants’ cross motion to toll the interest,
fees or other costs incurred while this action was marked of the calendar. Here, the court finds
that the defendants failed to establish sufficient grounds to toll the interest, especially because of
Ms. Cheeseman’s death stayed the instant action as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. (see CPLR
§ 1015[a]); U& Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d 853 [2d Dept 2019]; Medlock
y. Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 167 AD3d 994, 995 [2d Dept 2018]). It is
well settled law that in actions of an equitable nature, including foreclosure actions, "the
recovery of interest is within the court's discretion" (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Chun Fei Lee,
208 AD3d 1384 [2d Dept 2022] citing Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Ould-Khattri,201 AD3d
701, 703 [2d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The exercise of that discretion
will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either
party" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. at 201 AD3d 703). Here, the defendants made no
showing that there was any wrongdoing by Chase Bank or that Chase Bank "engaged in any
lengthy unexplained delay in prosecution that would warrant the limitation of interest" (Bank of
N.Y. Mellon v. George, 186 AD3d 661, 664 [2d Dept 2020]; see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Haughton,
189 AD3d 1305, 1308 [2d Dept 2020]; Prompt Mige. Providers of N. Am. LLC vy. Zaour, 155
AD3d 912, 915 [2d Dept 2017]). As such, that branch of the defendants’ cross-motion to toll the
interest, fees or other costs incurred while this action was marked of the calendar is denied.
Notwithstanding the same, that branch of the defendants’ cross-motion to substitute
James Cheeseman as Administrator of the Estate of Constance Cheeseman in the place and
3 of 6
3 of 6
INDEX NO. 710869/2021
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF 08/28/2023
stead of Constance Cheeseman is granted. As stated above, it is well established that the death
of a party automatically stays the proceedings in an action pending the substitution of a legal
representative for the decedent (see U & Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d 853
[2d Dept 2019]; Medlock v. Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 167 AD3d 994,
995 [2d Dept 2018]; Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015]; CPLR § 1015[a]).
Furthermore, the death of a party also divests the court of jurisdiction to conduct proceedings in
an action and stays the action until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR §
1015[a] (see Petion v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, 175 AD3d 519 [2d Dept
2019]; Medlock v. Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 167 AD3d 994, 995 [2d
Dept 2018]; Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015]; Stancu v. Cheon Hyang
Oh, 74 AD3d 1322, 1323 [2d Dept 2010)).
Moreover, “[a] motion for substitution pursuant to CPLR § 1021 is the method by which
the court acquires jurisdiction over the deceased party's personal representative, and such a
motion “is not a mere technicality” (U & Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d at 855
[citation omitted]). Furthermore, “any determination rendered without such substitution will
generally be deemed a nullity” (Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015], citing
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Rosemberg, 90 AD3d 713, 714 [2d Dept 2015]; see also U &
Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d 853 [2d Dept 2019]; CPLR § 1015[a]; and
CPLR § 1021). Moreover, the death of a party terminates his or her attorney's authority to act on
behalf of the deceased party (see Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015]). Here
the court finds that on November 22, 2019, Ms. Chesseman died. Thereafter, on June 21, 2021,
the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York, Queens Cunty, issued Letters of Administration,
which appointed Mr. Chesseman as his wife’s administrator. Thereafter, on April 7, 2022, the
latter cross-moved for the above-described relief. Notwithstanding the same, the court find that
there are sufficient grounds to substitute James Cheeseman as Administrator of Constance
Cheeseman’s Estate. (Ashfaq v. Ice Cream Depot Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 65424(U) [2d Dept
2022).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion to restore this action to the active status is granted;
and it is further,
4 of 6
4 of 6
INDEX NO. 710869/2021
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023
ORDERED that the clerk is directed to vacate the disposed marking of the case and to
restore this action to active status; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve and file his note of issue and certificate of
readiness for trial on or before October 31, 2023; and it is further,
ORDERED, that the defendants’ cross-motion for leave to substitute James Cheeseman as
Administrator of the Estate of Constance Cheeseman, as defendant, pursuant to CPLR §§§ 1015,
1021, and 3025, is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED, that the defendants’ cross-motion to toll the interest, fees or other costs
incurred while this action was marked of the calendar is denied, in its entirety; and it is further,
ORDERED, that the automatic stay that arose upon the death of Constance Cheeseman
is vacated, and this matter is restored to the Pre-Trial Calendar; and it is further,
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption of the case as of
the date of this Decision and Order to read as follows:
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Index No.: 710869/2021
Plaintiff,
-against-
JAMES CHEESEMAN, JAMES CHEESEMAN, AS THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CONSTANCE
CHEESEMAN, CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION PARKING VIOLATIONS
BUREAU,
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE #1 through #7, the last
seven (7) names being fictitious and unknown to the
plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the
tenants, occupants, persons or parties, if any, having
or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged
premises described in the Complaint,
Defendants.
; and it is further,
5 of 6
5 of 6
INDEX NO. 710869/2021
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023
ORDERED, that any other requested relief not expressly addressed herein has
nonetheless been considered by this Court and is hereby denied; and it is further,
ORDERED, that the plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry upon
the defendants, via first class mail and NYSCEF, on or before October 10, 2023.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: August 25, 2023
Long Island City, New York
FILED
8/28/2023
Vg: A MAURICE E. MUIR, J.S.C.
COUNTY CLE
QUEENS COUNTY
6 of 6
6 of 6
Preview
(FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM INDEX NO. 710869/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023 Short Form Order NEW YORK SUPREME COURT — QUEENS COUNTY FILED Present: HONORABLE MAURICE E. MUIR 8/28/2023 Justice COUNTY CLE QUEENS COUNTY JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IAS Part - 42 Plaintiff, Index No.: 710869/2021 -against- Motion Date: 5/26/22 JAMES CHEESEMAN, CONSTANCE CHEESEMAN, Motion Cal. No. 14 CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PARKING VIOLATIONS Motion Seq. No. 4 BUREAU JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE #1 through #7, the last even (7) names being fictitious and unknown to the plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the Complaint, Defendants. The following electronically filed (“EF”) documents read on this motion by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“Chase Bank” or “plaintiff”) for an order restoring this matter to the Court’s calendar together with such other and further relief as to the Court may deem just and proper. Moreover, James Cheeseman (“Mr. Cheeseman”) cross moves for an order substituting James Cheeseman, as Administrator of the Estate of Constance Cheeseman in the place and stead of Constance Cheeseman together with such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Papers Numbered Notice of Motion-Affirmation-Exhibits-Service . EF 08-19 Notice of Cross Motion-Memo of Law in Opposition/Support-Exhibit: EF 21-31 1 of 6 1 of 6 INDEX NO. 710869/2021 (FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023 Affirmation in Opposition Cross Motion-Exhibits... EF 33 - 46 Amended Affirmation in Opposition Cross Motion-E: its. EF 47 - 59 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross Motion. .. EF 60 Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that the motion and cross-motion are combined herein for disposition, and determined as follows: Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is determined as follows: This is an action to foreclose a mortgage action. On December 18, 2008, James Cheeseman and Constance Cheeseman (collectively, the “Cheesemans” or “mortgagors”) executed and delivered to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as nominee for Residential Home Funding Corp.(“RHFC”) a Mortgage ("the subject Mortgage") in the principal sum of $351,139.00 with interest, mortgaging the subject premises known as 137 40 234th Street, Rosedale, New York 11422 ("the subject premises") as collateral security for the Note. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that the Cheesemans defaulted on the mortgage loan by failing to make the June 1, 2012, payment and the subsequent payments. Thereafter, on October 23, 2012, RHFC assigned the subject mortgage to Chase Bank. Moreover, on July 30, 2013, the latter commenced the instant foreclosure action; and on or about December 18, 2014, issued was joined wherein, the court granted the Cheesemans to interpose a late verified answer with counterclaims. After the parties engaged in discovery, on February 22, 2017, the plaintiff filed its note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial (“Note of Issue”), which was withdrawn on March 27, 2017. Thereafter, on June 11, 2018, the plaintiff re-filed its note of issue. However, on June 27, 2018, the clerk of the court returned the same and advised the plaintiff that the matter was marked disposed. Thereafter, on November 22, 2019, Ms. Cheeseman died. Afterwards, on March 4, 2022, the plaintiff served and filed the instant motion; and on April 7, 2022, the Cheesemans served and filed the instant cross motion. Now, the parties seek the above- described relief. From the onset, the court notes that CPLR § 3404 is applicable only to cases stricken from the trial calendar, not to those pre-note of issue cases administratively “marked off” or “disposed” due to inactivity. (see, Kapnisakis v. Woo, 114 AD3d 729 [2d Dept 2014]; Khaolaead v. Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 820 [2d Dept 2005]; see also Liew v. Jeffrey Samel & Partners, 149 AD3d 1059 [2d Dept 2017]; Insuasti v. La Boom Disco, Inc., 209 AD3d 725 [2d Dept 2022]; Behan v. Behan, 145 AD3d 653 [2d Dept 2016]). The Appellate Division, Second Department, 2 of 6 2 of 6 INDEX NO. 710869/2021 (FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023 has repeatedly declared that administratively purging pre-note of issue cases, without the service of a 90-day written demand or an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, “is not permitted” and should not be deemed a dismissal of the action (see, Bilkho v. Roosevelt Square, LLC, 157 AD3d 849 [2d Dept 2018]; Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17 [2d Dept 2013]; Wynn v. Wynn-Wright, 201 AD3d 1017 [2d Dept 2022]). Here, the court’s “disposed” marking is tantamount to a purge or mark off of a pre-note of issue case, which is impermissible. (see Khaolaead v. Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 820 [2d Dept 2005]). In fact, in light of the fact that this action was never properly dismissed, there is no need for a motion to restore. (Ryskin v. Corniel, 181 AD3d 742 [2d Dept 2020] citing Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17 [2d Dept 2013]; Insuasti v. La Boom Disco, Inc., 209 AD3d 725 [2d Dept 2022]). As such, the plaintiffs motion to restore this action tor the active calendar is granted. However, the court denies that branch of the defendants’ cross motion to toll the interest, fees or other costs incurred while this action was marked of the calendar. Here, the court finds that the defendants failed to establish sufficient grounds to toll the interest, especially because of Ms. Cheeseman’s death stayed the instant action as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. (see CPLR § 1015[a]); U& Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d 853 [2d Dept 2019]; Medlock y. Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 167 AD3d 994, 995 [2d Dept 2018]). It is well settled law that in actions of an equitable nature, including foreclosure actions, "the recovery of interest is within the court's discretion" (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Chun Fei Lee, 208 AD3d 1384 [2d Dept 2022] citing Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Ould-Khattri,201 AD3d 701, 703 [2d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. at 201 AD3d 703). Here, the defendants made no showing that there was any wrongdoing by Chase Bank or that Chase Bank "engaged in any lengthy unexplained delay in prosecution that would warrant the limitation of interest" (Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. George, 186 AD3d 661, 664 [2d Dept 2020]; see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Haughton, 189 AD3d 1305, 1308 [2d Dept 2020]; Prompt Mige. Providers of N. Am. LLC vy. Zaour, 155 AD3d 912, 915 [2d Dept 2017]). As such, that branch of the defendants’ cross-motion to toll the interest, fees or other costs incurred while this action was marked of the calendar is denied. Notwithstanding the same, that branch of the defendants’ cross-motion to substitute James Cheeseman as Administrator of the Estate of Constance Cheeseman in the place and 3 of 6 3 of 6 INDEX NO. 710869/2021 (FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF 08/28/2023 stead of Constance Cheeseman is granted. As stated above, it is well established that the death of a party automatically stays the proceedings in an action pending the substitution of a legal representative for the decedent (see U & Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d 853 [2d Dept 2019]; Medlock v. Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 167 AD3d 994, 995 [2d Dept 2018]; Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015]; CPLR § 1015[a]). Furthermore, the death of a party also divests the court of jurisdiction to conduct proceedings in an action and stays the action until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR § 1015[a] (see Petion v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, 175 AD3d 519 [2d Dept 2019]; Medlock v. Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 167 AD3d 994, 995 [2d Dept 2018]; Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015]; Stancu v. Cheon Hyang Oh, 74 AD3d 1322, 1323 [2d Dept 2010)). Moreover, “[a] motion for substitution pursuant to CPLR § 1021 is the method by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the deceased party's personal representative, and such a motion “is not a mere technicality” (U & Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d at 855 [citation omitted]). Furthermore, “any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” (Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015], citing JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Rosemberg, 90 AD3d 713, 714 [2d Dept 2015]; see also U & Me Homes, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 169 AD3d 853 [2d Dept 2019]; CPLR § 1015[a]; and CPLR § 1021). Moreover, the death of a party terminates his or her attorney's authority to act on behalf of the deceased party (see Vapnersh v. Tabak, 131 AD3d 472, 473 [2d Dept 2015]). Here the court finds that on November 22, 2019, Ms. Chesseman died. Thereafter, on June 21, 2021, the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York, Queens Cunty, issued Letters of Administration, which appointed Mr. Chesseman as his wife’s administrator. Thereafter, on April 7, 2022, the latter cross-moved for the above-described relief. Notwithstanding the same, the court find that there are sufficient grounds to substitute James Cheeseman as Administrator of Constance Cheeseman’s Estate. (Ashfaq v. Ice Cream Depot Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 65424(U) [2d Dept 2022). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion to restore this action to the active status is granted; and it is further, 4 of 6 4 of 6 INDEX NO. 710869/2021 (FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023 ORDERED that the clerk is directed to vacate the disposed marking of the case and to restore this action to active status; and it is further, ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve and file his note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial on or before October 31, 2023; and it is further, ORDERED, that the defendants’ cross-motion for leave to substitute James Cheeseman as Administrator of the Estate of Constance Cheeseman, as defendant, pursuant to CPLR §§§ 1015, 1021, and 3025, is granted; and it is further, ORDERED, that the defendants’ cross-motion to toll the interest, fees or other costs incurred while this action was marked of the calendar is denied, in its entirety; and it is further, ORDERED, that the automatic stay that arose upon the death of Constance Cheeseman is vacated, and this matter is restored to the Pre-Trial Calendar; and it is further, ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption of the case as of the date of this Decision and Order to read as follows: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Index No.: 710869/2021 Plaintiff, -against- JAMES CHEESEMAN, JAMES CHEESEMAN, AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CONSTANCE CHEESEMAN, CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE #1 through #7, the last seven (7) names being fictitious and unknown to the plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the Complaint, Defendants. ; and it is further, 5 of 6 5 of 6 INDEX NO. 710869/2021 (FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 0872872023 03:16 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/28/2023 ORDERED, that any other requested relief not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been considered by this Court and is hereby denied; and it is further, ORDERED, that the plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry upon the defendants, via first class mail and NYSCEF, on or before October 10, 2023. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: August 25, 2023 Long Island City, New York FILED 8/28/2023 Vg: A MAURICE E. MUIR, J.S.C. COUNTY CLE QUEENS COUNTY 6 of 6 6 of 6