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 BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT INCLUDE THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURTS, MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATTER IS ARBITRABLE, CITY HAD ISSUED NEW PROTOCOLS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS, THE UNION FILED A GRIEVANCE ARGUING THE NEW PROTOCOLS MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF ARBITRATION, AN ARBITRATOR MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Brought a Frivolous Lawsuit Solely to Harass/Costs Properly Imposed on Plaintiff
EVEN CRIMINAL SLURS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE AS DEFAMATION IF THEY ARE PURE OPINION; HERE DEFENDANT’S TWEET ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF MAKING “THREATS” WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT TO ADD AN APPARENTLY MISNAMED PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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...