You are here: / / CPLR 3408, Which Requires a Settlement Conference in a Foreclosure Action...
, ,

CPLR 3408, Which Requires a Settlement Conference in a Foreclosure Action Involving a Primary Residence, Does Not Apply Where the Mortgage Collateralizes a Personal Guaranty of a Commercial Loan to a Corporation

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined a statute designed to assist homeowners faced with foreclosure on their primary residence (calling for a settlement conference) did not apply where the mortgage collateralizes a personal guaranty of a commercial loan to a corporation:

CPLR 3408 (requiring a settlement conference) is certainly applicable to many residential foreclosure actions. However, CPLR 3408 does not apply to every residential foreclosure action. Indeed, CPLR 3408 is limited to residential foreclosure actions involving home loans as the term “home loan” is defined by RPAPL 1304. As so defined, home loans are those which are made to a natural person and in which the debt incurred is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (see RPAPL 1304[5][a][ii], [iii]).

The borrower, as defined under the instant term loan agreement and the note, and the entity that is recognized in the guaranty, was [a corporation]. … The borrower …was not a natural person (see RPAPL 1304[5][a][ii]).

Further, the debt incurred was the $230,000 loan given to [the corporation]. The Supreme Court correctly determined that since the purpose of the loan was to purchase machinery and equipment, and to fund other various start-up, closing, and construction costs associated with fashioning a … store, it was clearly not primarily incurred for personal, family, or household purposes (see RPAPL 1304[5][a][ii]…).  Independence Bank v Valentine, 2013 NY Slip Op 07937, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

You might also like
THE 2007 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THE INITIAL ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT),
Probation Department’s Unauthorized Taking of DNA Evidence Required Suppression/Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Applied to Deny Suppression of Identification Evidence and Defendant’s Statement
ALTHOUGH THE STEP WAS MARKED AND THERE WAS A WARNING SIGN, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE STEP AND THE SIGN COULD NOT BE SEEN WHEN THE AREA WAS CROWDED; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIR-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SEPARATE COUNTS FOR A CONTINUING OFFENSE RENDERED INDICTMENT MULTIPLICITOUS.
​DEFENDANTS IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF GEOGRAPHICAL DATA (SPEED, LOCATION) RECORDED ON PLAINTIFF’S CELL PHONE DURING A THREE-HOUR PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
PRIOR PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED CONDEMNATION OF LAND ALREADY SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC USE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE EXISTING PUBLIC USE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STRUCK BY A BRICK WHICH RICOCHETED OUT OF A CHUTE USED FOR DUMPING DEBRIS FROM THE UPPER FLOORS OF A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; THE CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ISSUED, NO JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS STILL VIABLE AND PLAINTIFFS COULD MOVE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Supreme Court Should Not Have Treated Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss as Motion... Condominium Owners Stated a Cause of Action Based Upon Third-Party-Beneficiary...