Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 46 read on this motion by defendant to vacate the note of issue and strike plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with discovery:Notice of Motion and supporting papers 1-33;Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 34-46;(and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is,
*1 ORDERED that the purported motion by defendant Victoria Petersen to vacate the note of issue and strike plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 (3) for failure to comply with discovery is denied, as this defendant is in default in answering and has not moved to vacate her default, which was fixed and set by the court’s order of August 11, 2016; and it is furtherORDERED that the motion by defendant Noel Feustel to vacate the note of issue and strike plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 (3) for failure to comply with discovery is denied.PROCEDURAL HISTORYThis is an action to foreclose a mortgage on residential real property known as 39 South Snedecor Avenue, Bayport, Suffolk County, New York given by defendants Noel Feustel and Victoria Petersen (“defendant-mortgagors”) to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells”), a predecessor in interest to plaintiff Citibank, National Association as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2007-9, Asset-backed Certificate Series 2007-9 (“plaintiff”) on May 23, 2007 to secure a note given the same day to Wells by defendant Noel Feustel (“defendant”). Plaintiff subsequently brought this action upon the default of defendant-mortgagors in their payment obligations under the note and mortgage and defendant filed an answer raising affirmative defenses. Defendant Victoria Petersen never answered.The defendant and plaintiff (“the parties”) engaged in discovery, resulting in a Differentiated Case Management Order/Stipulation dated November 7, 2013 (“the 2013 Discovery Order”) while the case was assigned to Justice Arthur G. Pitts of this court. Thereafter, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, an order of reference pursuant to RPAPL §1321 and other associated relief (Mot. Seq. #001) and defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint (Mot. Seq. # 002). Both motions were submitted before Justice Pitts on July 16, 2014. On June 29, 2015, by an Administrative Order of the Suffolk County District Administrative Judge, the case was transferred to Acting Supreme Court Justice Richard I
