From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Empire Savings Bank v. Towers Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1976
54 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Summary

In Empire Sav. Bank v Towers Co. (54 AD2d 574, 575 [2d Dept 1976]), a handyman occupied an apartment in the subject premises but paid no rent.

Summary of this case from Alexander Condo. v. AB Funding Corp.

Opinion

September 27, 1976


In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff and the defendant the Towers Company appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 10, 1976, which, inter alia, (1) vacated a prior order of the same court, dated October 30, 1975, and (2) reappointed a receiver, effective November 5, 1975. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the order of October 30, 1975 is reinstated. Special Term vacated its order of October 30, 1975, which order, inter alia, appointed a receiver, on the ground that no action to foreclose was pending on the date the order issued. Nonpendency was predicated upon a finding that service upon one John Wingate, a handyman who occupies a basement apartment in the subject premises, but pays no rent, was not service upon a party defined in sections 1311 Real Prop. Acts. and 1313 Real Prop. Acts. of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, and was not service upon an agent of defendant the Towers Company. Although Wingate may not be a person defined by the statutes cited, he is a person who may be joined as a party to the foreclosure action (see CPLR 1002, subd [b]). The interest of an occupant of the mortgaged premises who is not served remains unaffected by the foreclosure (Douglas v Kohart, 196 App. Div. 84, 88; 1 Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosure, § 369). Wingate was, therefore, properly joined as a party in order to cut off his interest as an occupant in possession of an apartment in the premises. Service upon him commenced the action. The owner of the equity of redemption need not be served before a receiver is appointed; service upon another proper party also commences the action so as to permit the appointment of a receiver (see Harvey v Mooney, 168 App. Div. 169; Wolf v 120 Middleton Realty Corp., 31 Misc.2d 668). Latham, Acting P.J., Margett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Empire Savings Bank v. Towers Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1976
54 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

In Empire Sav. Bank v Towers Co. (54 AD2d 574, 575 [2d Dept 1976]), a handyman occupied an apartment in the subject premises but paid no rent.

Summary of this case from Alexander Condo. v. AB Funding Corp.

In Empire Sav. Bank v Towers Co. (54 AD2d 574, 575 [2d Dept 1976]), a handyman occupied an apartment in the subject premises but paid no rent.

Summary of this case from Alexander Condo. v. AB Funding Corp.

In Empire Sav. Bank v. Towers Co. (54 A.D.2d 574, 575 [2d Dept 1976]), a handyman occupied an apartment in the subject premises but paid no rent. Because "[t]he interest of an occupant of the mortgaged premises who is not served remains unaffected by the foreclosure," the court ruled that he was "properly joined as a party in order to cut off his interest as an occupant in possession of an apartment in the premises" (ibid.)

Summary of this case from Alexander Condo. v. Ab Funding Corp.
Case details for

Empire Savings Bank v. Towers Company

Case Details

Full title:EMPIRE SAVINGS BANK, Respondent-Appellant, v. TOWERS COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 27, 1976

Citations

54 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Krochta v. Green

( Douglas v Kohart, 196 App. Div. 84, 88.) If a tenant is not made a party, his interest is not affected by…

1644 Broadway LLC v. Jimenez

Thus, the absence of a necessary party in a foreclosure action leave the party's rights unaffected by the…