You are here: / / IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER...
, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether any distributees of the deceased mortgagors were necessary parties in this foreclosure action. The motion to dismiss for failure to join necessary parties should not have been granted. The court should have determined whether joinder of any parties was required and then summon them pursuant to CPLR 1001 [b]:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1311(1), “necessary defendants” in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, “[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the curtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein.”

“In certain circumstances, the estate of the mortgagor is not a necessary party to a mortgage foreclosure action” … . In particular, “where a mortgagor/property owner dies intestate and the mortgagee does not seek a deficiency judgment, generally a foreclosure action may be commenced directly against the distributees,” in whom title to the real property automatically vests … .

Here, the plaintiff did not seek a deficiency judgment. However, questions of fact existed, which should have been resolved by the Supreme Court, as to whether any distributees of the deceased mortgagors, other than the defendants herein, retained an interest in the property such that they were necessary parties to the foreclosure action. Further, to the extent that there were such necessary parties to the action, dismissal of the complaint was not the proper remedy; rather, the property remedy in such instance is to direct the joinder of those parties (see CPLR 1001[b] … . NRZ Pass-Through Trust IV v Tarantola, 2021 NY Slip Op 01423, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

You might also like
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST NYC, AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, ONCE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE FALL, THE PLAINTIFF MUST COME FOWARD WITH EVIDENCE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIES, EVEN IF, AS HERE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES NO EXCEPTION APPLIES; CASE LAW TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST HEALTH PLAN STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 4406-D (SECOND DEPT).
Governmental Immunity Re: Plaintiff Does Not Insulate Governmental Defendants from Contribution Claim by Another Defendant to Whom the Governmental Defendants Owed a Duty of Care
LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN ICY CONDITION PRECLUDED SUIT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL; DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT; LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Participation in Testimony Read-Back Is Error
ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION.

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

ABSENT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISMISSED... DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING...