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
Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY LAW 329 PROVIDES THAT THE OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN BRING ACTIONS TO CANCEL RECORDED ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFF LACKED STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE FOSTER CARE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE AND STRENGTHEN THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BEFORE FILING THE PETITION TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT). ​
COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ACTION AGAINST GAS COMPANY FOR CONTAMINATION OF REAL PROPERTY ACCRUED WHEN INJURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AND WAS TIME BARRED; ACTION FOR NUISANCE RELATING TO REMEDIATION EFFORTS, HOWEVER, IS SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVISION AND WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (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

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