You are here: Home / Bankruptcy
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, , ,

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STAY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE STAY WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined an automatic bankruptcy stay tolls the statute of limitations where a party has a pending action at the time the stay was imposed:

New York law tolls the statute of limitations where “the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition” (CPLR 204 [a]). Federal bankruptcy law automatically stays the commencement or continuation of any judicial proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition (see 11 USC § 362 [a]). We must determine whether the bankruptcy stay qualifies as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204 (a), and, if so, whether a party may later avail itself of the toll where, at the time the stay was imposed, that party had a pending action asserting the same claim. … [W]e answer yes to both questions … . * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” The result here depends on our reading of the term “commencement.”

Plaintiff argues that it is impossible for defendant to have been prohibited from “commencing” an action because a foreclosure action had been commenced prior to plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing. Application of plaintiff’s rule would be as follows: Because defendant filed the first foreclosure claim and defendant responded by filing a bankruptcy petition, invoking the automatic stay, commencement of that first action was not “stayed” under the statute and the toll is inapplicable. And when defendant filed a second foreclosure action, and plaintiff again responded by again filing a bankruptcy petition that invoked the automatic stay, “commencement” of that second action was not stayed, once again making the toll inapplicable … . * * *

Neither this Court nor the Legislature has restricted the term “commencement” to the first time a party files a complaint asserting a cause of action; instead the term may also include the commencement of subsequent actions asserting the same claim … . Lubonty v U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.., 2019 NY Slip Op 08520, CtApp 11-25-19

 

/by
,

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET IN HIS VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bankruptcy trustee was properly substituted, by the Bankruptcy Court, for plaintiff in a personal injury action, despite the fact that the action had not been listed as an asset when plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for chapter 7 bankruptcy:

The rule that a substitution cannot be made is grounded in Reynolds v Blue Cross of Northeastern N.Y., Inc. (210 AD2d 619). In that case, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary petition for chapter 7 bankruptcy, and failed to list the action on the schedule of assets. After the plaintiffs were discharged from bankruptcy, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue. During the pendency of the motion, the plaintiffs moved in the Bankruptcy Court to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding and to have a successor trustee appointed. A successor trustee was appointed, and both the plaintiffs and the interim trustee opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, 3rd Department, determined that substitution was not available to cure the deficiency, on the ground that a party with no capacity to sue could not be replaced with one who had the capacity to sue, citing Matter of C & M Plastics (Collins) (168 AD2d 160, 161-162). However, in Matter of C & M Plastics (Collins), the proceeding in the Supreme Court was commenced after a bankruptcy petition was filed; therefore, in that case, the plaintiff did not have capacity to sue at the time of the commencement of the action.

Although subsequent cases have held that a substitution of the bankruptcy trustee for the plaintiff cannot be made, even if the plaintiff had the capacity to sue at the time the action or proceedings was commenced (see Rivera v Markowitz, 71 AD3d 449, 450; Pinto v Ancona, 262 AD2d 472), other cases have held that where a motion for substitution was made at the direction of a bankruptcy court, the motion should be granted, as a matter of comity (see Berry v Rampersad, 21 Misc 3d 851 [Sup Ct, Kings County]). … As a matter of comity, and in deference to the determination of the Bankruptcy Court, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as the plaintiff, and to deny the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of capacity to sue, and thereupon, to dismiss the complaint. Fausset v Turner Constr. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 08173, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

/by
, ,

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION AS AN ASSET IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not have the legal capacity to sue in this slip and fall case because the action was not listed as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding:

“The failure of a party to disclose a cause of action as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding, which the party knew or should have known existed at the time of that proceeding, deprives him or her of the legal capacity to sue subsequently on that cause of action'” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not disclose, in the bankruptcy petition that she filed in October 2015, the existence of the cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries that she had previously asserted against the defendant. The defendant established, prima facie, that when the petition was filed, the plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of her cause of action, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to that prima facie showing … . Jean-Paul v 67-30 Dartmouth St. Owners Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05965, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/by
, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS ALLEGING INACCURATE ADVICE CAUSED HER TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY, BECAUSE THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ACCRUED WHEN PLAINTIFF FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, THE LAWSUIT BECAME PART OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE AND PLAINTIFF WAS THEREBY STRIPPED OF THE CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not have the capacity to sue the defendant attorneys for legal malpractice. The lawsuit alleged the attorneys gave inaccurate advice which caused plaintiff to file for bankruptcy on March 20, 2012. Because plaintiff’s legal malpractice action accrued on the day she filed for bankruptcy, and the lawsuit was not listed as an asset, the lawsuit became part of the bankruptcy estate:

The commencement of a bankruptcy proceeding creates an “estate” that is comprised of “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case” (11 USC § 541[a][1]…). “Upon the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition, all property which a debtor owns, including a cause of action, vests in the bankruptcy estate” … . “Although federal law determines when a debtor’s interest in property is property of the bankruptcy estate, property interests are created and defined by state law”… . Causes of action that accrue under state law prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition, as well as those that accrue as a result of the filing, are property of the estate … . “[A] debtor’s failure to list a legal claim as an asset in his or her bankruptcy proceeding causes the claim to remain the property of the bankruptcy estate and precludes the debtor from pursuing the claim on his or her own behalf” … . Burbacki v Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 04128, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

/by
,

DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bankruptcy trustee could take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) to recommence a lawsuit within six months of the dismissal. The timely filed action was dismissed because the debtor did not list the suit as an asset in the bankruptcy filings:

… [D]ismissal of the 2013 action was not based upon a voluntary discontinuance, lack of personal jurisdiction, neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment on the merits (see CPLR 205[a]). … CPLR 205(a) is applicable even though the 2013 action was dismissed based on the debtor’s incapacity to sue. The extension provisions of CPLR 205(a) are available to a plaintiff who seeks to recommence an action, notwithstanding that the prior action upon which the plaintiff relies was “invalid” in the sense that it contained a fatal defect … .

Although, as a general matter, only the plaintiff in the original action is entitled to the benefits of CPLR 205(a), the Court of Appeals has nevertheless recognized an exception to this general rule under certain circumstances where the plaintiff in the new action is seeking to enforce “the rights of the plaintiff in the original action” … . The Court of Appeals also has stated that the statute’s ” broad and liberal purpose is not to be frittered away by any narrow construction'” … . In this case, the plaintiff, the debtor’s bankruptcy trustee, seeks to recommence a personal injury action as the debtor’s successor-in-interest. As the debtor’s successor-in-interest, the plaintiff has the capacity to commence this action to recover damages for the debtor’s alleged personal injuries … . Consequently, the plaintiff is not seeking to enforce any rights separate and independent from those asserted by the debtor in the prior action … . Goodman v Skanska USA Civ., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01394, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/by
,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, AND THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case was entitled to severance of the action against the property owner, Pathmark (supermarket), which filed for bankruptcy, from the action against the snow removal contractor, Peterman:

The supermarket defendants filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, resulting in an automatic stay pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a). However, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362(a) did not extend to the nonbankrupt Peterman … . “Generally, the balance of the equities lies with plaintiff[ ] when severance is sought because the case against one defendant is stayed pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a), and that is particularly so in this personal injury action where a delay would be prejudicial to the plaintiff[ ]” … .

The supermarket defendants are subject to a $750,000 self-insured retention, which would make a lifting of the bankruptcy stay less likely. As the prejudice to the plaintiff in being required to await the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding before obtaining any remedy outweighs any potential inconvenience to Peterman, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the action insofar as asserted against the supermarket defendants from the action insofar as asserted against Peterman … . Vogric v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01447, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/by
,

PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was judicially estopped from imposing a constructive trust on real property because he stated he had no interest in the property in prior bankruptcy proceedings:

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed … . The doctrine applies only where the party secured a judgment in his or her favor in the prior proceeding … . This doctrine “rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise'” … . “The doctrine is invoked to estop parties from adopting such contrary positions because the judicial system cannot tolerate this playing fast and loose with the courts”… .

Here, the plaintiff’s contention that he had an interest in the … property based on promises that [defendant]  made to the plaintiff … is contrary to his representation to the United States Bankruptcy Court … that he had no interest in real property. Based upon the plaintiff’s representations to the Bankruptcy Court, his debts were discharged. Therefore, we agree with the Supreme Court that this action is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . Bihn v Connelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

/by
,

FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s (Hurst’s) motion to amend her answer and her motion to dismiss on judicial estoppel grounds were properly granted. Plaintiff had failed to list a cause of action against defendant in her bankruptcy proceeding. Judicial estoppel therefore precluded plaintiff’s action against defendant:

In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b]…). Lateness alone is not a barrier to the amendment … .” It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'”… . The determination to permit or deny amendment is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Hurst’s proposed judicial estoppel defense based on its failure to schedule its current claims against her in its third bankruptcy proceeding was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from taking a position in one legal proceeding which is contrary to that which it took in a prior proceeding, simply because its interests have changed … . “The twin purposes of the doctrine are to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to protect judicial integrity by avoiding the risk of inconsistent results in two proceedings'”… . “[T]he integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of all of their assets”… . By failing to list causes of action on bankruptcy schedules of assets, the debtor represents that it has no such claims … . Thus, the doctrine of judicial estoppel may bar a party from pursuing claims which were not listed in a previous bankruptcy proceeding … . Moran Enters., Inc. v Hurst, 2018 NY Slip Op 02321, Second Dept 4-4-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND ANSWER, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER, AMEND (FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (BANKRUPTCY, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (SCHEDULE OF ASSETS, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCHEDULE OF ASSETS (BANKRUPTCY, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (AMEND ANSWER, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/by
, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s twice filing for bankruptcy tolled the statute of limitations for the foreclosure action, making the foreclosure action timely. Therefore, the bank’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501 action to cancel and discharge the mortgage was properly granted:

Section 362 of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (11 USC) provides that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title” … . The filing of a petition for protection under the Bankruptcy Code imposes “an automatic stay of any mortgage foreclosure actions” … . CPLR 204(a) provides that “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed . . . by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” Pursuant to CPLR 204(a), the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay tolls the limitations period for foreclosure actions … .

Here, in support of its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), U.S. Bank submitted copies of the plaintiff’s petitions filed in the Bankruptcy Court, together with copies of the orders dismissing the first bankruptcy proceeding and releasing the subject property from the bankruptcy estate in the second bankruptcy proceeding, thereby establishing that, pursuant to CPLR 204(a), the statute of limitations had been tolled for over 4½ years. Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 02153, Second Dept 3-28-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, BANKRUPTCY, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 204 (FORECLOSURE, BANKRUPTCY, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, RPAPL 1501 ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE MORTGAGE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

/by
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the statute of limitations for bringing a foreclosure action, although tolled when bankruptcy proceedings were active, was not tolled when a temporary restraining order prohibiting the sale of the property was in effect. Therefore the foreclosure action was time-barred:

Under CPLR 204(a), “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced” … . The bankruptcy stay of 11 USC § 362(c) operates under CPLR 204(a) to stay the commencement, or continuation, of a foreclosure action … . Thus, the periods during which bankruptcy stays were in effect were not part of the time counted in the calculation of the running of the statute of limitations … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, however, the time during which the temporary restraining order was in effect when the [borrowers] moved to dismiss the first foreclosure action did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. That order prevented the plaintiff from selling the property at auction, but only in the context of the first foreclosure action. The temporary restraining order did not prevent the plaintiff from discontinuing the first foreclosure action and commencing a new action… . Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled under CPLR 204(a) to have the time during which the temporary restraining order was in effect excluded from the statute of limitations, and the total time elapsed from the acceleration of the mortgage debt until the second foreclosure action was commenced exceeded six years, even when the periods attributable to the bankruptcy stays are excluded. U.S. Bank N.A. v Joseph, 2018 NY Slip Op 02155, Second Dept 3-28-18

FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 204 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy