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
DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF’S SON WAS INJURED, ACCORDING TO EXPERT EVIDENCE, WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS, WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND WAS NONHAZARDOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO SERVE A CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS, WHICH APPARENTLY RESULTED IN THE PLAINTIFFS NOT ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ FULLY SUBMITTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
Mischaracterization of a Jury Note Required Reversal
CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (4) MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM, NOT BY A MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 2ND 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...