You are here: / / Where Proof of the Fair Market Value of Foreclosed Property (Offered in...
, ,

Where Proof of the Fair Market Value of Foreclosed Property (Offered in Support of a Motion for a Deficiency Judgment) Is Insufficient, Rather than Deny the Motion Outright, the Court Should Direct the Bank to Submit Additional Proof

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly failed to award a post-foreclosure-sale deficiency judgment to the bank because the bank’s proof of the fair market value of the foreclosed property, although uncontested, was insufficient.  However, Supreme Court should have allowed the bank to present additional proof establishing the fair market value:

RPAPL 1371 (2) directs that, when a lender makes a motion for a deficiency judgment,

“the court, whether or not the respondent appears, shall determine, upon affidavit or otherwise as it shall direct, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises as of the date such premises were bid in at auction or such nearest earlier date as there shall have been any market value thereof and shall make an order directing the entry of a deficiency judgment” … .

This provision is a directive that a court must determine the mortgaged property’s “fair and reasonable market value” when a motion for a deficiency judgment is made. As such, when the court deems the lender’s proof insufficient in the first instance, it must give the lender an additional opportunity to submit sufficient proof, so as to enable the court to make a proper fair market value determination. * * *

It is, of course, within the court’s discretion to elucidate the type of proof it requires so it can render a proper determination as to fair market value. The court may also order a hearing if it deems one necessary. In proceedings that are governed by section 1371, the court is in the best position to determine the type of proof that will allow it to comply with the directives of that section. Lenders seeking deficiency judgments, however, must always strive to provide the court with all the necessary information in their first application.  Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Bitar, 2015 NY Slip Op 04678, CtApp 6-4-15

 

You might also like
THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE DISCHARGED JUST PRIOR TO THE LUNCH BREAK; A PROBLEM WITH A SITTING JUROR AROSE DURING THE BREAK AND THE JUROR WAS REMOVED; DELIBERATIONS HAD NOT YET BEGUN BUT THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE; THE JUDGE THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE RECALLED ONE OF THE ALTERNATE JURORS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
Local Law, Which Regulates the Conduct of Attorneys Who Regularly Engage in (Nonlegal) Activities Traditionally Performed by Debt Collectors, Not Preempted by the Judiciary Law
DECEDENT’S WORK-RELATED COVID DEATH ENTITLED DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER, DECEDENT’S “STATUTORY BENEFICIARY,” TO “ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFITS” UNDER A RECENT STATUTE; PETITIONER, DECEDENT’S PARTNER, WHO WAS DECEDENT’S “DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY” FOR “ORDINARY DEATH BENEFITS,” WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE “ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFITS” (CT APP).
EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED PRIOR IDENTICAL SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW INTENT, MOTIVE, OR AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED.
DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP).
THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN APPLYING THE WRONG STANDARD TO THE REDUCTION OF A SENTENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FOR DECADES; HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HAS RECENTLY STOPPED APPLYING THE WRONG STANDARD, THIS APPEAL IS MOOT (CT APP),
EVEN THOUGH THE SORA RISK LEVEL CAME OUT THE SAME (115 POINTS), THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRST REMOVED 15 POINTS WHICH WERE BASED ON AN INAPPLICABLE RISK FACTOR AND THEN ADDED 15 POINTS BASED ON A RISK FACTOR NOT INCLUDED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT; THAT CONSTITUTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WITHOUT NOTICE (CT APP).
THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S SEXUAL-MISCONDUCT GUILTY PLEA AND THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW (CT APP).

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

Agency’s Failure to Follows Its Own Regulations Rendered Determination... Statutory Prohibition of Court Review of Civil Service Commission’s Determination...