From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wand v. Saleh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 1995
218 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

August 7, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

RPAPL 1301 (3) requires a plaintiff to obtain leave of court to maintain an action to recover on the mortgage debt during the pendency of an action to foreclose the mortgage or after final judgment for the plaintiff (see, Lehman v. Roseanne Investors Corp., 106 A.D.2d 617; Boyd v. Jarvis, 74 A.D.2d 937). It is well settled that leave to bring a separate action against a party who was a defendant in the foreclosure action will not be granted "`unless special circumstances were shown which manifestly required that course'" (Sanders v. Palmer, 68 N.Y.2d 180, 185). The law office failure cited by the plaintiff does not constitute special circumstances warranting that the court grant permission to maintain his proposed action against the defendant (cf., Irving Trust Co. v. Seltzer, 265 App. Div. 696). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wand v. Saleh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 1995
218 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Wand v. Saleh

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY WAND, Appellant, v. SAMIR SALEH, Respondent, et al., Defendant

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

Date published: Aug 7, 1995

Citations

218 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
630 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

Windward Bora LLC v. Browne

Moreover, it did so after both the State Foreclosure Judgment and the Federal Foreclosure Judgment were…

Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Grauer

However, the terms of the subject Assignment of Rents and Leases establish that the rents, if recovered, were…