Opinion
November 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen B. Ciparick, J.).
Plaintiff timely obtained and filed an order extending its notice of pendency, but because the subject property was not described, the County Clerk did not index and record the order but instead returned it to plaintiff after the original notice of pendency had lapsed. Under these circumstances, the resettled order extending the notice and directing that it be recorded and indexed nunc pro tunc as of the date of filing of the first extension order was properly made (Sanders Assocs. v Hague Dev. Corp., 131 A.D.2d 462). CPLR 6513 directs that the order "shall be filed, recorded and indexed before expiration of the prior period", which we read as a directive binding on the County Clerk (see, Manton v Brooklyn Flatbush Realty Co., 217 N.Y. 284, 287). Assuming that plaintiff was remiss in omitting the block and lot number from the face of the original extension order, it was the County Clerk's failure promptly to reject the document that prevented plaintiff from timely curing the omission. Moreover, the index number did not change and so the block and lot number was only a minor omission.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.