,

A PARTY WHO IS NOT A OBLIGOR ON THE NOTE, BUT IS A SIGNATORY ON THE MORTGAGE, IS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant (Lucy), who was not an obligor on the note, but who executed the mortgage, was subject to foreclosure:

A party who is not an obligor on a note but is a signatory on the corresponding mortgage, while not personally liable for the debt, is a mortgagor and has agreed to mortgage his or her interest in the property as security for the debt … . Here, although Lucy did not execute the Obligation to Pay and is not personally liable for the payment obligation, she executed the mortgage whereby she pledged her interest in the property as security for the obligations set forth in the co-ownership agreement and the Obligation to Pay, and thus, Lucy’s interest in the property is subject to foreclosure … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Zzoha, 2025 NY Slip Op 03793, Second Dept 6-25-25

Practice Point: A party who is not on obligor on the note but is a signatory on the corresponding mortgage is subject to foreclosure.

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROCEEDING UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 52 TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STATE INSURANCE FUND TO THE EXTENT THE STATE IS A GARNISHEE (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this CPLR article 52 action to enforce a money judgment against New York State Insurance Fund. Ordinarily an action for money damages against a state agency is litigated in the Court of Claims:

In this proceeding, the State Insurance Fund is postured not as a judgment debtor but as a garnishee. As such, under CPLR 5207, all procedures for the enforcement of money judgments against other judgment debtors are applicable to it, as a garnishee, “except where otherwise prescribed by law” and except that an order “shall only provide for the payment of moneys not claimed by the [S]tate” and that no judgment may be entered against the State in such a procedure.

The State Insurance Fund has not shown that this proceeding is otherwise prescribed by law. To the contrary, CPLR 5221(a)(4) provides that the Supreme Court or a County Court has authority to hear enforcement proceedings “authorized by this article,” meaning the entirety of CPLR article 52, which, of course, includes CPLR 5207 garnishment proceedings against the State. … The petition seeks entry of an order, not a judgment. Thus, contrary to the State Insurance Fund’s contention, we hold that the Supreme Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment as against the State Insurance Fund to the extent that the State’s role in this instance is that of a garnishee. Matter of Doran Constr. Corp. v New York State Ins. Fund, 2025 NY Slip Op 03716, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here, under very complicated facts, Supreme Court was deemed to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action to enforce a money judgment against a state agency where the state’s role is that of a garnishee.

 

, , , , ,

PETITIONER JUDGMENT-CREDITOR WAS ENTITLED TO THE TURNOVER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED TO A TRUST BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT-DEBTORS, AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS OF RESPONDENTS’ SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to real property which was fraudulently transferred by respondents to a trust, as well as to the contents of respondents’ safety deposit box, to satisfy a judgment against respondents in the approximate amount of $338,000:

… [P]etitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52, seeking … the turnover of a safety deposit box maintained by the respondents Zakhar Brener and Ninel Krepkina and of certain residential real property owned by the respondent B and K Trust. * * *

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action seeking relief pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 273 by submitting evidence that Brener was insolvent at the time of the conveyance of the property, which was made without fair consideration … .  * * *

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action seeking relief pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276. “Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276, every conveyance made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors is fraudulent. The requisite intent required by this section need not be proven by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the allegedly fraudulent transfer” … . “In determining whether a conveyance was fraudulent, the courts consider the existence of certain common ‘badges of fraud,’ which include ‘a close relationship between the parties to the alleged fraudulent transaction; a questionable transfer not in the usual course of business; inadequacy of the consideration; the transferor’s knowledge of the creditor’s claim and the inability to pay it; and retention of control of the property by the transferor after the conveyance'” … . “A prime example of this type of fraud is where a debtor transfers his property to another while retaining the use thereof so as to continue . . . free from the claims of creditors” … . Here, the petitioner submitted, among other things, the Brener respondents’ answer, wherein they admitted that Brener continued to occupy and use the property with Krepkina. …

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to direct Chase Bank to turn over of the contents of the safe deposit box maintained by Brener and Krepkina by submitting a letter establishing that Brener and Krepkina jointly held a safe deposit box at one of Chase Bank’s branches in Brooklyn … . Matter of Schiffman v Affordable Shoes, Ltd., 2025 NY Slip Op 02786, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of a CPLR Article 52 turnover proceeding by a judgment creditor against judgment debtors based in part upon respondents’ fraudulent transfer of real property to avoid creditors (Debtor and Creditor Law sections 273 and 276).

 

, , ,

WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION AFTER REVERSAL OF A RESTRAINING NOTICE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER ARE DISCRETIONARY ISSUES TO BE DECIDED UPON REMAND; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court and remanding the matter, determined that whether the judgment debtor was entitled to restitution based on the reversal of a restraining notice and whether the plaintiff is entitled to an installment payment order were not decided by the reversal, but  rather were discretionary issues to be resolved on remand. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

… CPLR 5015(d) provides that, “[w]here a judgment or order is set aside or vacated, the court may direct and enforce restitution in like manner and subject to the same conditions as where a judgment is reversed or modified on appeal.” … Thus, “CPLR 5015[d] empowers a court that has set aside a judgment or order to restore the parties to the position they were in prior to its rendition, consistent with the court’s general equitable powers” … . The essential inquiry for a court addressing a request for the equitable remedy of restitution is whether it is against equity and good conscious to permit a party to retain the money that is sought to be recovered … . The determination whether to award restitution is committed to the trial court’s discretion … . * * *

Contrary to defendant’s contention that an installment payment order cannot be directed at funds exempt from execution under CPLR 5231 (i.e., 90% of his monthly disability insurance payments), such an order is the expedient for accessing exempt income … . As Professor Siegel stated long ago, “[o]ne of [CPLR 5226’s] prime uses is in that situation . . . where it appears that the judgment debtor can afford more than the 10% to which the income execution is limited” … . Thus, “[t]he court on the [CPLR 5226] motion can direct the debtor to make regular payments to the judgment creditor in any sum it finds the debtor able to afford, not limited by the 10% that restricts the income execution of CPLR 5231” … . Hamway v Sutton, 2025 NY Slip Op 01062, First Dept 2-25-25

Practice Point: Although this opinion is fact-specific, it includes the criteria for some fundamental debtor-creditor issues, i.e., the amount of monthly disability insurance payments which is available to a judgment debtor, the income-sources which are available to a judgment debtor, whether a plaintiff is entitled to an installment payment order, the criteria for a court’s discretionary determination of the amount a judgment debtor can afford to pay every month, etc.

​

, , , ,

DEFENDANT BOUGHT THE FORECLOSED PROPERTY WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE HAD BEEN APPEALED; DEFENDANT WAS A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE AND WAS THEREFORE INSULATED FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE APPELLATE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Bartlett) was a purchaser in good faith and for value of the foreclosed property. The foreclosure was reversed on appeal. Defendant, as the fee owner of the property, was insulated from the effects of the reversal:

Where a judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed on appeal, the successful appellant may seek restitution of the real property lost by the judgment (see CPLR 5015[d]; 5523). However, where the real property was sold pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and the title is held by “a purchaser in good faith and for value,” recovery is limited to the value of the real property (id. § 5523). In the absence of a stay of the sale or an outstanding notice of pendency, title of the purchaser in good faith and for value “is . . . insulate[d] . . . from the effects of an appellate reversal” … .

Here, in support of its cross-motion, Bartlett established, through an affidavit of its member, that Bartlett acquired title to the property subsequent to a foreclosure sale, without actual knowledge of a successful appeal by the plaintiffs in the underlying action that resulted in a vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale … . The affidavit also demonstrated that the plaintiffs had not obtained a stay of the foreclosure sale in the underlying action. Under these circumstances, Bartlett established … that it was a purchaser in good faith and for value entitled to the protection of CPLR 5523 … . Puretz v Mae, 2024 NY Slip Op 06227, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A buyer of foreclosed property who had no knowledge the judgment of foreclosure had been appealed is insulated from the effects of a reversal on appeal. The buyer, as a purchaser in good faith for value, is the fee owner of the property.

 

, , ,

HERE AN OTHERWISE UNTIMELY COUNTERCLAIM WAS RENDERED TIMELY PURSUANT TO CPLR 203(D) TO THE EXTENT IT SOUGHT EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the counterclaim alleging professional malpractice was timely pursuant to CPLR 203(d) to the extent the counterclaim sought equitable recoupment, as opposed to affirmative relief:

Even crediting the court’s determination that this claim accrued on February 4, 2019, rendering time-barred the counterclaim alleging professional malpractice asserted on February 15, 2022, the defendants are permitted, pursuant to CPLR 203(d), to seek equitable recoupment in a counterclaim. CPLR 203(d) provides, “[a] defense or counterclaim is interposed when a pleading containing it is served. A defense or counterclaim is not barred if it was not barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed, except that if the defense or counterclaim arose from the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, upon which a claim asserted in the complaint depends, it is not barred to the extent of the demand in the complaint notwithstanding that it was barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed.” “This provision allows a defendant to assert an otherwise untimely claim which arose out of the same transactions alleged in the complaint, but only as a shield for recoupment purposes, and does not permit the defendant to obtain affirmative relief” … . Getzel Schiff & Pesce, LLP v Shtayner, 2024 NY Slip Op 06186, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: An otherwise untimely counterclaim which arises from a claim asserted in the complaint may be deemed timely pursuant to CPLR 2013(d) to the extent it seeks equitable recoupment as opposed to affirmative relief.​

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE GUARANTEES REQUIRED THAT THE TENANT SURRENDER THE PREMISES IN THE CONDITION DESCRIBED BY THE LEASE, THE GUARANTEES DID NOT INCORPORATE THE LEASE OR EXPRESSLY REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SURRENDER TERMS OF THE LEASE; THEREFORE THE TENANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SURRENDER TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT TRIGGER THE GUARANTORS’ OBLIGATIONS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the language of the guarantees controlled and the guarantors were relieved of responsibility for the tenant’s rent payments when the tenant surrendered the property in compliance with the terms of the guarantees. Although the guarantees referred to surrendering the premises in the condition required by the lease, the guarantees did not incorporate the lease or expressly require compliance with the surrender terms of the lease. Therefore the tenant’s failure to comply with the surrender terms of the lease did not trigger any obligation on the part of the guarantors:

… [T]he guarantees expressly limit defendants’ liability to the terms contained therein, which, as relevant here, only require that tenant surrender the premises in compliance with the surrender provisions set forth in the guarantees. While the guarantees mandated tenant surrender the premises in the condition required by the terms of the lease, they do not incorporate the terms of the underlying lease by reference … or expressly require that tenant’s surrender of the premises be performed pursuant to the terms of the lease … .

Therefore, while tenant was required to obtain written consent of the surrender from plaintiff under the lease, the motion court improperly determined that tenant’s failure to do so precluded the guarantors’ avoidance of liability for unpaid rent after tenant’s surrender … . ROC-Lafayette Assoc., LLC v Sturm, 2024 NY Slip Op 06016, Frist Dept 12-3-24

Practice Point: The language of a guarantee is strictly construed. Here the guarantees required surrender of the premises in the condition described by the lease but did not incorporate the lease or expressly require compliance with the surrender terms of the lease. Therefore the tenant’s failure to comply with the surrender terms of the lease did not trigger the guarantors’ responsibility for the tenant’s rent payments. The tenant had fully complied with the surrender terms in the guarantees.

 

,

A LIENHOLDER NONPARTY TO AN ACTION THAT RESULTED IN A FEE AWARD TO A DEBTOR MAY SUE TO RECOVER THOSE FEES WHERE THE LIENHOLDER WAS NEITHER JOINED NOR REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THAT ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined: “[a] lienholder nonparty to an action that resulted in a fee award against a debtor may challenge the legal basis of the judgment in a separate proceeding to recover those fees. We conclude that because the nonparty was neither joined nor required to intervene in the action against the debtor, it had no prior opportunity to challenge the award and thus is not barred from doing so in this proceeding … “.  Matter of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2024 NY Slip Op 05876, CtApp 11-26-24

 

, ,

THE TURNOVER PETITION SEEKING REAL PROPERTY AND FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO DEFRAUD JUDGMENT CREDITORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the turnover petition seeking real property and funds transferred by judgment debtors to defraud judgment creditors should have been granted:

CPLR 5225(b) “‘provides for an expedited special proceeding by a judgment creditor to recover money or other personal property belonging to a judgment debtor against a person in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest in order to satisfy a judgment'” … . A proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225(b) “may also be maintained ‘against a person who is a transferee of money or other personal property from the judgment debtor'” …

Pursuant to CPLR 5227, “a special proceeding may be commenced by a judgment creditor ‘against any person who it is shown is or will become indebted to the judgment debtor'” … . In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5227, the “judgment creditor stands in the judgment debtor’s shoes, and may enforce the obligations owed to the judgment debtor by the indemnifying party” … .

… [T]he judgment creditors offered sufficient evidence to establish that [respondent] Nancy Barrick transferred the Barrick estate to the Barrick Trust with actual intent to hinder, delay, and defraud present or future creditors pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276 … …. Nancy Barrick transferred title to the Barrick estate without adequate consideration to a trust for which she and her brother served as the trustees while retaining control over and possession of the property.

… [T]he judgment creditors also offered sufficient evidence to establish that the conveyances from the RMP judgment debtors to the RMP transferees were made with actual intent to defraud present and future creditors pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276. … [T]he transfers were made without adequate consideration and evinced a distinct course of conduct after incurring large debts to the judgment creditors to render the RMP judgment debtors insolvent … . Matter of Argyle Funds SPC, Inc. v Barrick, 2024 NY Slip Op 01806, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: The CPLR provides a mechanism called a turnover petition which allows a judgment creditor to obtain property fraudulently transferred by the judgment debtor.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFORMATION OF A CONTRACT BASED ON A SCRIVENER’S ERROR HAD PASSED; THE CLEAR ERROR PRODUCED AN ABSURD RESULT WHICH CANNOT BE ADOPTED OR CONDONED BY THE COURT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding defendant “indemnitor” liable as guarantor of a $44 million debt should have been granted. Plaintiff argued the term “borrower,” instead of “indemnitor,” was mistakenly used to indicate the identity of the guarantor of the loan. Although the statute of limitations on the alleged “scrivener’s error” action had run, to interpret the language of the guaranty in the manner argued by defendant (i.e., “borrower” was the intended term) resulted in an absurdity, which would have rendered the loan unguaranteed:

… [A] court may correct a scrivener’s error outside of a claim for reformation of a contract in “those limited instances where some absurdity has been identified or the contract would otherwise be unenforceable either in whole or in part” … . In other words, a court is not “constrained to adopt an absurd phrasing in the contract merely because the statute of limitations for reformation had passed, when the error is obvious and the drafters’ intention clear” … . * * *

… [A] guaranty must be read in the context of the loan agreement and “in a manner that accords the words their ‘fair and reasonable meaning,’ and achieves ‘a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties'” … . In other words, a “contract should not be interpreted to produce a result that is absurd, commercially unreasonable or contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties” … . NCCMI, Inc. v Bersin Props., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01161, First Dept 3-5-24

Practice Point: A clear-cut scrivener’s error in a contract which produces an absurd result the parties could not have intended will not be adopted or condoned by a court, despite the running of the statute of limitations on a contract-reformation cause of action.