You are here: / / EVEN THOUGH THE DEBTOR TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE NON-DEBTOR CODEFENDANT...
, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEBTOR TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE NON-DEBTOR CODEFENDANT YEARS BEFORE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY, THE BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE FORECLOSURE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION AGAINST THE DEBTOR; THE TOLL DID NOT APPLY TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE NON-DEBTOR WHICH NEVER FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure statute of limitations was tolled by the bankruptcy stay for the action against the defendant who filed for bankruptcy, but not for the defendant to which the property was transferred (who did not file for bankruptcy):

This appeal requires us to examine whether the stay provided by section 362 of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (11 USC § 362[a]) operates as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204(a) to toll the statute of limitations to commence a mortgage foreclosure action against a defendant debtor who no longer owns the property that is the subject of the mortgage foreclosure action. We hold that the bankruptcy stay pursuant to subsection 362(a)(1) (see 11 USC § 362[a][1]) tolls the statute of limitations for commencing a mortgage foreclosure action against the defendant debtor, regardless of whether that defendant owns the property at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

This appeal also requires us to determine whether the bankruptcy stay pursuant to subsection 362(a) applies to a nondebtor codefendant to which the defendant debtor transferred the property years before filing for bankruptcy. On the record before this Court, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of raising a question of fact as to whether the bankruptcy stay applied to the nondebtor codefendant. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeMatteis, 2023 NY Slip Op 05242, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Filing for bankruptcy tolls the foreclosure statute of limitations, even if the property had been transferred before the filing.

 

You might also like
Drug Treatment and Drug Testing Facilities Do Not Have a Duty to Provide the Test Results With a Disclaimer Indicating the Tests Were Done According to “Clinical,” Not “Forensic,” Standards—Here the “Clinical” Results Were Disseminated and Used In Court Proceedings
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS NO EXPRESS INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE AND THE FLO0R-CLEANING DEFENDANTS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE FLOOR-CLEANING DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT OR CAUSED THE INJURY; THEREFORE THE GROCERY STORE’S INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS DURING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RENDERED THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE, WHICH INCLUDED A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEASED DEFENDANT, A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY MAKING A LEFT TURN DIRECTLY INTO DEFENDANT’S PATH OF TRAVEL WHEN DEFENDANT HAD A GREEN LIGHT; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT WAS SPEEDING WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ODOR AND OBSERVATION OF MARIJUANA; SEIZURE OF A TRANSPARENT BAG OF PILLS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THE PILLS WERE CONTRABAND AND THERE WAS NO MARIJUANA IN THE BAG (SECOND DEPT).
Procedure Under Civil Rights Law for Disclosure of Police Personnel Records Described

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 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT PRESENT A NEW THEORY OF... IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT...