You are here: / / THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY...
, ,

THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE FUNCTIONS AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MOTION HERE WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgagor’s order to show cause seeking a deficiency judgment against defendant, the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale, should have been dismissed as untimely pursuant to RPAPL 1371:

RPAPL 1371(2) states that “[s]imultaneously with the making of a motion for an order confirming the sale, provided such motion is made within ninety days after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the proper deed of conveyance to the purchaser, the party to whom such residue shall be owing may make a motion in the action for leave to enter a deficiency judgment upon notice to the party against whom such judgment is sought or the attorney who shall have appeared for such party in such action.” “The courts have uniformly treated the 90-day period contained in RPAPL 1371(2) as a provision in the nature of a statute of limitations, so that the plaintiff’s failure to serve notice within the 90-day period is a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment, and the proceeds of the sale will be deemed to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt” … . JDRMDBP-SM, LLC v Hossain, 2023 NY Slip Op 06033, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: The 90-day time-limit in RPAPL 1371 for bringing a motion for a deficiency judgment against the purchaser of property at a foreclosure sale functions as a statute of limitations. A late motion must be dismissed.

 

You might also like
THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST WITHIN FIVE DAYS IS A DENIAL; THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL EXCUSED PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO SEEK ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW; PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted Awarding Sole Custody to Plaintiff
Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)
THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE WAS TOO WEAK TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN HE MADE THE STATEMENTS BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RULED ON BELOW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT-SELLERS NOT LIABLE FOR MOLD AND MICE IN HOUSE SOLD TO PLAINTIFFS, UNDER THE MERGER DOCTRINE NO PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT SURVIVED THE DELIVERY OF THE DEED, THE DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR APPLIED, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED TO THE PLAINTIFFS OVER AND ABOVE THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE PRIVITY ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION WAS ABSENT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE HOLDER OF A FIRST MORTGAGE WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE MORTGAGE HOLDER DID NOT NEED TO FILE ITS OWN FORECLOSURE ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS LIEN ON THE SURPLUS TAX-FORECLOSURE-SALE PROCEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING HIS MOTHER’S ESTATE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION MAY BE A WITNESS, UNDER THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE CASE, DISQUALIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ASSERTING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT MENTION AN ALLEGEDLY MISSING STOP SIGN AS A BASIS FOR LIABILITY, THE MISSING STOP SIGN WAS MENTIONED IN THE POLICE REPORT WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM (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

TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RELEASE WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED...