You are here: / / IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANKRUPTCY STAY DID NOT TERMINATE WHEN...
, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANKRUPTCY STAY DID NOT TERMINATE WHEN DEFENDANT BOUGHT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE; THE STAY TERMINATED LATER WHEN DEFENDANT RECEIVED A DISCHARGE FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, in a matter of first impression, determined the foreclosure action, which had been stayed when defendant twice filed for bankruptcy, was timely brought. If the stay ceased when defendant bought the subject property from the bankruptcy estate, the foreclosure would have been untimely. But the Second Department held that the stay did not cease until the subsequent discharge order, rendering the action timely:

… [D]efendant’s purchase of the Middle Pond Road property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to the November 26, 2013 order did not terminate the automatic bankruptcy stay barring commencement of the instant foreclosure action, but rather, under the circumstances of this case, the automatic bankruptcy stay terminated when the defendant received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court on November 3, 2014.

Pursuant to the plain language of 11 USC § 362(c)(1), the discharge of the … property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to the November 26, 2013 order terminated the stays of an act against “property of the estate,” which stays are established by 11 USC § 362(a)(3) and (4). Here, however, upon the defendant’s purchase of the … property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to November 26, 2013 order, ownership of the … property returned to the defendant, as debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding … . Consequently, the termination of the stay of an act against “property of the estate” provided for by 11 USC § 362(c)(1) has no bearing on the stays established by 11 USC § 362(a)(1) and (5), which expressly apply to acts taken against “the debtor” or “property of the debtor,” and which continued in effect. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lubonty, 2022 NY Slip Op 04288, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here whether the foreclosure action was timely depended on when the bankruptcy stay terminated. The defendant in the foreclosure action was the “debtor” in the bankruptcy proceeding. The defendant bought the property which was the subject of the foreclosure action from the bankruptcy estate. Based on the applicable bankruptcy statute, the bankruptcy stay did not terminate when defendant bought the property. It terminated later when defendant received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court. Because the stay terminated on the later date, the foreclosure action was timely.

 

You might also like
ANGRY REMARK MADE TO PROBATION OFFICER DID NOT CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION, PROBATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT TO POLICE OFFICERS HOURS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred
DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Rationale for Allowing a Late Motion for Summary Judgment When It Is Identical in Substance to a Timely Motion for Summary Judgment Made by Another Party Explained
Remainderman Was Entitled to the Tax and Insurance Payments Made on Behalf of the Holder of the Life Estate/Life Estate Should Have Been Extinguished as a Matter of Equity
THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT AVER THAT THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BANK (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

RE: A MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY, IF ALLEGATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVITS ARE CONTROVERTED,... PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH...