You are here: / / APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING;...
, ,

APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellant’s motion to intervene in this foreclosure action should have been granted:

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage given by the defendant Kathleen O. Nocella. Nocella defaulted in appearing in the action. During the pendency of the action, nonparty Henry Irving, LLC (hereinafter the appellant), acquired title to the subject property. In September 2017, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference. The appellant cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to intervene in the action. …

The appellant was entitled to intervene as of right pursuant to CPLR 1012(a) since it established that the representation of its interest by the parties would be inadequate, that the action involved the disposition of title to real property, and that it would be bound and adversely affected by a judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 1012[a][2], [3]; 6501 …). Contrary to the court’s determination, neither the fact that the appellant obtained its interest in the subject property after this action was commenced and the notice of pendency was filed, nor the fact that the defendants defaulted in answering or appearing, definitively bars intervention … . Moreover, since the appellant’s cross motion, inter alia, for leave to intervene was made before an order of reference or judgment of foreclosure and sale was issued, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the timing of the cross motion … . Bank of Am., NA v Nocella, 2021 NY Slip Op 03159, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

You might also like
THE AFFIDAVIT UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE AFFIANT AND THE CALCULATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE INFORMATION INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT A DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THIS RELATED NEGLIGENCE ACTION AND ARGUING PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS PRESENTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for 1983 Action Against Municipality Based On Policy or Custom
THE PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE; THE AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (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

MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC... THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304...