You are here: / / Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a Foreclosure Action...
,

Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a Foreclosure Action Did Not Prohibit, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, the Plaintiff’s Action to Be Declared the Owner of the Subject Property/A Person With an Interest in Real Property Who Is Not Joined in a Foreclosure Action Is Unaffected by the Judgment of Foreclosure

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s (Jamison’s) action to declare her the owner of property subject to foreclosure should not have been dismissed under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Plaintiff’s ownership of the property had not been determined in the foreclosure action in which she unsuccessfully sought to intervene.  In addition, a person with an interest in real property who is not joined in a foreclosure action remains unaffected by the judgment of foreclosure:

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has been necessarily decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling … . The party seeking the benefit of the doctrine of collateral estoppel must establish that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action, and is determinative in the present action … . Once the party invoking the doctrine discharges his or her burden in that regard, the party to be estopped bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination … .

Here, the bank failed to establish that the issue of whether Jamison has an interest in the subject property had already been decided, since the order it relied upon expressly provided that no determination had made by the court with respect to the issue of whether or not Jamison was a necessary or indispensable party, and Jamison’s motion to intervene as of right in the foreclosure action was denied without explanation. In any event, where a person with an interest in real property is not joined as a party to an action to foreclose a mortgage on that property, that person’s rights are left unaffected by the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and the foreclosure sale may be considered void as to the omitted person … . Accordingly, Jamison’s interest, if any, in the subject property was neither litigated nor determined in the foreclosure action, and the order denying her motion to intervene as of right in the foreclosure action was not an adjudication of her rights on the merits. Jamison v Aquai, 2015 NY Slip Op 04097, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

You might also like
Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue
VISITATION PROPERLY GRANTED TO GRANDMOTHER DESPITE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN GRANDMOTHER AND FATHER.
Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)
CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN A HYBRID ACTION SEEKING AN ANNULMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (AND DAMAGES), THE BURDENS TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING ARE DIFFERENT; IN AN ARTICLE 78 THE PETITIONER MUST AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE STANDING; AND IN A DECLARTORY-JUDGMENT/DAMAGES ACTION, THE RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT) MUST DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AS A MATTER OF LAW TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLL FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER 2020 DID NOT ONLY APPLY TO ACTIONS WHOSE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED DURING THAT PERIOD; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT FINDING DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER COUNTS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (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

“Bankruptcy” Exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy Applied—Insurer... Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege a Presuit Demand Would Be Futile