You are here: / / A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IF THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT...
, , ,

A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IF THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THE TITLE (HERE SUSPICION A DEED WAS FORGED); CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) IS NOT STRICTLY APPLIED TO A JUDICIAL SALE AT AUCTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and setting aside the judicial foreclosure sale, determined the possibility a deed was forged cast suspicion on the fairness of the sale. The court noted that caveat emptor (buyer beware) is not strictly applied to a judicial sale:

“‘[A] purchaser at a judicial sale should not be compelled by the courts to accept a doubtful title,’ and, ‘if it was bad or doubtful, he [or she] should, on his [or her] application, be relieved from completing the purchase'” … .

Moreover, “[t]he rule that a buyer must protect himself [or herself] against undisclosed defects does not apply in all strictness to a purchaser at a judicial sale” … . “[A] sale of land in the haste and confusion of an auction room is not governed by the strict rules applicable to formal contracts made with deliberation after ample opportunity to investigate and inquire” … .Golden Bridge, LLC v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03854, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: Here the purchase of property at a foreclosure judicial sale was set aside because of suspicion a deed was forged. The doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) is not strictly applied to a judicial sale.

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS PROCEEDING AND SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 4213 (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS (DOCTORS), NOT THE POLICYHOLDERS’ EMPLOYER WHICH PAID THE PREMIUMS, ARE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVERSION OF THE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
Neither CPLR 5015 Nor Family Court Act 451 Was a Bar to Mother’s Petition to Modify a Child-Support Money Judgment by Temporarily Suspending Interest
City Did Not Demonstrate Entitlement to Qualified Immunity for a Planning Decision Re: Design of Playground Equipment
THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION SUFFICIENTLY STATED THE TIME AND... THE WRONG MAILING DATE IN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN AN...