From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roosevelt Savings Bank v. Tsotsos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 1995
215 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 15, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The plaintiff Roosevelt Savings Bank held a mortgage on the defendants' home. When the defendants defaulted on their payments on the underlying loan secured by the mortgage, the bank commenced this foreclosure action. The bank purchased the house at a foreclosure sale for a sum less than that owed by the defendants on the mortgage. A Referee delivered the deed to the bank on February 10, 1993.

By notice of motion dated March 2, 1993, the bank moved to confirm the Referee's report of sale and for a deficiency judgment. Although the bank properly served the defendants, it never filed the motion with the court, apparently in part because the Referee's report had not yet been filed with the court.

The Referee's report was filed with the County Clerk on April 9, 1993, and, on July 17, 1993, the bank again served the defendants with its motion papers. The motion was returnable August 6, 1993, and was filed with the court.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing in part that the bank's motion should be denied as untimely pursuant to RPAPL 1371, as it was not served until July 17, 1993, more than 90 days after the Referee delivered the deed to the bank. The Supreme Court agreed with the defendants and denied the bank's motion. We now reverse.

As required by RPAPL 1371, the defendants were personally served with the bank's motion papers within 90 days after the Referee delivered the deed to the bank. That the bank did not file that motion with the court, and later served and filed new motion papers seeking the same relief, is not fatal to it. Unlike the situation where a defendant is not served within the 90-day period (see, Voss v Multifilm Corp., 112 A.D.2d 216), the defendants here were served with and had notice of the bank's claim. The statute "was not designed to provide loopholes to a mortgagor to escape an obligation assumed by him" (Catholic Women's Benevolent Legion v Burke, 253 App. Div. 261, 264). Accordingly, the bank's motion to confirm the Referee's report of sale and to direct the entry of a money judgment for the deficiency is granted. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Roosevelt Savings Bank v. Tsotsos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 1995
215 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Roosevelt Savings Bank v. Tsotsos

Case Details

Full title:ROOSEVELT SAVINGS BANK, Appellant, v. GEORGE TSOTSOS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 15, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 279

Citing Cases

Sarasota v. Homestead Acres at Greenport

We agree with the appellant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the…

Rivera v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc.

It does not follow from the fact that this single motion had been served on the attorney for the plaintiff on…