Friedman Vartolo LLP, Garden City, NY (Stephen J. Vargas of counsel), for appellant.

The David R. Smith Law Group PLLC, New York, NY, for nonparty respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Larry D. Martin, J.), dated July 18, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the cross-motion of nonparty 903 Realty NY, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) for an extension of time to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross-motion of nonparty 903 Realty NY, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) for an extension of time to answer the complaint is denied.

The underlying facts of this appeal are set forth in a related appeal reversing so much of an order dated June 24, 2022 (hereinafter the June 2022 order), as, sua sponte, granted nonparty 903 Realty NY, LLC (hereinafter 903 Realty), leave to intervene in the action as a party defendant (see Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v LaMadrid, 240 AD3d 480 [2025] [decided herewith]).

Following the June 2022 order, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for an extension of time to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint upon the defendants and to amend the caption. 903 Realty cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) for an extension of time to answer the complaint. By order dated July 18, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion, as well as 903 Realty's cross-motion. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order dated June 18, 2023, as granted 903 Realty's cross-motion.

In light of our determination in the related appeal, the Supreme Court should not have granted 903 Realty's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) for an extension of time to answer the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Christopher, Ventura and McCormack , JJ., concur.