Lombardo v. Fielding

225 A.D.2d 672, 639 N.Y.2d 483, 639 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2608
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

Lombardo v. Fielding, 225 A.D.2d 672, 639 N.Y.2d 483, 639 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 672 (Lombardo v. Fielding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mtge. Corp. v. Daniel
2024 NY Slip Op 01262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Chemical Bank v. Dana
4 F. App'x 1 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Volpe v. National Bank of Geneva
171 Misc. 2d 948 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)