You are here: / / Proof of Value of Property For Purposes of Entering a Deficiency Judgment...

Proof of Value of Property For Purposes of Entering a Deficiency Judgment Not Sufficient

The Second Department determined that the mortgage lender failed to submit adequate proof of the value of the property for purposes of entering a deficiency judgment:

RPAPL 1371(2) permits a mortgage lender to enter a deficiency judgment for the amount owed “less the market value as determined by the court or the sale price of the property whichever shall be the higher.” “The mortgagee has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of the fair market value of the property as of the foreclosure sale date” … . An affidavit by a “licensed real estate appraiser setting forth his [or her] opinion as to the fair market value of the premises on the date of the foreclosure sale, and stating in conclusory fashion that his [or her] opinion was based upon his [or her] personal inspection of the subject premises, examination of the neighborhood, a review of sales and rentals of comparable properties, and general economic trends and expenses data,” without describing the subject premises or appending evidence of comparable sales and market date, is not sufficient … . In the instant case, the plaintiff relied upon such a conclusory affidavit, two exterior photographs of the front and side of the subject premises, and information purportedly indicating the average sale price of properties in the relevant zip code area, without explaining how those average prices related to the appraiser’s conclusion that the fair market value of the subject property on the date of the foreclosure sale was $550,000. The plaintiff’s submission was, thus, insufficient to meet its burden of establishing that it was entitled to a deficiency judgment. Eastern Sav Bank FSB v Brown, 2013 NY Slip Op 08228, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

You might also like
ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT CAREFULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE FLAWS IN THE PROOF (SECOND DEPT).
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST ITS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) STATUS HAD DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS NOT FAILED TO FILE AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL AND REQUEST A HEARING WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (A) (SECOND DEPT).
THE REMAINDER BENEFICIARIES’ ACTION ALLEGING THE EXECUTOR’S VIOLATION OF A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT, WHICH REQUIRED THE EXECUTOR TO KEEP THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE DECEASED’S BUSINESS IN A SEGREGATED ACCOUNT UNTIL THE DAUGHTERS’ REMAINDER INTERESTS WERE DETERMINED, DID NOT VIOLATE THE IN TERROREM CLAUSE OF THE WILL WHICH PROHIBITED THE DAUGHTERS FROM CONTESTING THE WILL, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
New York’s Transactional Approach to Res Judicata Applies to Issues Which Could Have Been Raised in a Prior Proceeding on the Merits, Even Where Prior Proceeding Was Wrongly Decided
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY INDICATING DEFENDANT WAS IDENTIFIED IN A LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A ONE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION CASE, THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY AND PHYSICIAN REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, ARGUING PLAINTIFF MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SPECIFY HOW PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Numerous Core Issues Discussed in Complicated Case Stemming from Mold in a Complex... Under the Facts, a Stairwell Partially Covered by a Piece of Wood Was Not an...