You are here: / / ONCE PLAINTIFF RELEASED THE MORTGAGE UPON PAYMENT OF LESS THAN THE VALUE...
,

ONCE PLAINTIFF RELEASED THE MORTGAGE UPON PAYMENT OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTY BY AMENDING THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, once plaintiff agreed to release a mortgage in return for sale proceeds which were less than the value of the note, plaintiff could then commence a proceeding on the note and the guaranty. The court further held that the action on the note and guaranty could be accomplished by amending the original foreclosure complaint:

“RPAPL 1301(3) . . . prohibits a party from commencing an action at law to recover any part of the mortgage debt while the foreclosure proceeding is pending or has not reached final judgment, without leave of the court in which the foreclosure action was brought'” … . Conversely, “where a foreclosure action is no longer pending and did not result in a judgment in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff is not precluded from commencing a separate action' without leave of the court” … .

Here, since, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the plaintiff agreed to accept the net proceeds of the sale in exchange for releasing the property from the mortgage and there was no judgment in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff was not precluded from seeking to recover on the note and guaranty by RPAPL 1301(3), “a statute which must be strictly construed” … .

Furthermore, there is no reason the plaintiff could not seek such relief by seeking leave to amend its complaint, rather than by commencing a new action … . TD Bank, N.A. v 250 Jackson Ave., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01828, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/NOTE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR  (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDING COMPLAINT, AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTEE BY AMENDING THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION WAS DEEMED “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW ENTITLING DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel as Applied to Public Corporations Explained
ALTHOUGH A FRYE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, THE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR THE ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Statements at Issue Were Statements of Opinion Directly Linked to the Plaintiff’s Writings—Defamation Complaint Properly Dismissed
WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION CAN SERVE AS A PREDICATE FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE DETERMINED WITHOUT THE CONNECTICUT ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT; THE UNPRESERVED ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT TO MINE THAT PORTION OF ITS LAND SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ZONING BOARD AND SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IN THE PLEADINGS (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A PHYSICALLY DISABLED CHILD” CONVICTION (BY GUILTY PLEA) ON “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” GROUNDS WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT AGAIN VACATED THE CONVICTION ON “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE” GROUNDS; THE MEDICAL RECORDS INDICATED THE CHILD WAS NOT BURNED BY HOT WATER, BUT RATHER SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION TO MEDICATION (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

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED, LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE... ATTORNEYS’ FEES NOT AVAILABLE TO INSURED WHO BRINGS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION...