HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION USA v. Zong Lau et al., Nonparty–Appellants. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn III, J.), entered July 30, 2024, which granted plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct a foreclosure sale of the subject premises and denied nonparty appellants' cross-motion to be substituted as defendants in place of defendant mortgagor Jsang Kei Lau (Jsang Lau), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct a foreclosure sale (see Bank of Am., N.A. v. Cord, 214 A.D.3d 934, 935–936, 187 N.Y.S.3d 68 [2d Dept. 2023]).  The sale was delayed on multiple occasions due to various reasons, including stays obtained by Jsang Lau, bankruptcy actions commenced by Jsang Lau, the executive orders staying foreclosures during the Covid–19 pandemic, and a federal action commenced by appellants, Jsang Lau's daughters, and later dismissed, as well as other motion practice initiated by appellants.  Nor can appellants claim to be prejudiced by the delay caused, in large part, by their own actions and Jsang Lau's conduct before them (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Adam P10tch, LLC, 226 A.D.3d 497, 497–498, 209 N.Y.S.3d 360 [1st Dept. 2024], lv dismissed 42 N.Y.3d 1046, 224 N.Y.S.3d 13, 249 N.E.3d 39 [2024]).  There is no basis for appellants to reargue the issue of standing at this juncture (see CPLR 1018;  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hudson, 98 A.D.3d 576, 577, 949 N.Y.S.2d 703 [2d Dept. 2012]).

The court also properly denied appellants' cross-motion to be substituted as defendants in this action.  Before Jsang Lau died in 2020, the mortgage was in default, this action had been commenced, and a judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered against him in 2018.  Indeed, appellants do not challenge the legitimacy of the judgment, nor do they contend that Jsang Lau predeceased the judgment.  Moreover, in July 2024, plaintiff asserted that it was waiving any right to a deficiency judgment against Jsang Lau's estate.  Accordingly, Jsang Lau's death did not affect the merits of this action, and a stay of foreclosure was not mandated pending substitution (see Matter of London, 200 A.D.3d 493, 493, 160 N.Y.S.3d 14 [1st Dept. 2021];  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Miglio, 197 A.D.3d 776, 777, 150 N.Y.S.3d 592 [2d Dept. 2021];  cf.  Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Persaud, 231 A.D.3d 842, 844, 220 N.Y.S.3d 366 [2d Dept. 2024]).

Even if appellants were substituted in this action, their substitution would not alter or invalidate the judgment or Jsang Lau's underlying pre-death default, which is the sole basis for the judgment (see Gray v. Bankers Trust Co. of Albany, N.A., 82 A.D.2d 168, 170–171, 442 N.Y.S.2d 610 [3d Dept. 1981], lv denied 58 N.Y.2d 604, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 445 N.E.2d 654 [1983]).

We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.