Lombardo v. Fielding
This text of 225 A.D.2d 672 (Lombardo v. Fielding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Contrary to the appellants’ contention, RPAPL 1371 does not bar the instant action. New York law mandates that where a debt is secured by mortgages on two properties, and foreclosure of the first mortgage leaves a deficiency, the failure to obtain a deficiency judgment bars further proceedings to foreclose the second mortgage (see, RPAPL 1371; Sanders v Palmer, 68 NY2d 180). This requirement, however, applies only to mort[673]*673gages secured by property located in New York State (see, Provident Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v Steinmetz, 270 NY 129; Yager v Rubymar Corp., 35 Misc 2d 517). Here, since the previous foreclosure action concerned property located in Florida, the fact that the plaintiff did not obtain a deficiency judgment in that action does not bar the instant action, which seeks to enforce the assignment of a mortgage secured by property located in New York State.
The appellants’ remaining contentions lack merit. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
225 A.D.2d 672, 639 N.Y.2d 483, 639 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lombardo-v-fielding-nyappdiv-1996.