Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., respondent, v. Jaime ORTIZ, et al., appellants; Mohammad S. Islam, intervenor-respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated December 22, 2003, as denied those branches of their motion which were to vacate a foreclosure sale held on July 26, 2002, and to invalidate a referee's deed delivered to the successful bidder on July 17, 2003.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
“ ‘It is well settled that the owner of the equity of redemption has a right to redeem at any time before an actual sale under a judgment of foreclosure’ ” (NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. LFJ Realty Corp., 307 A.D.2d 957, 958, 763 N.Y.S.2d 836; quoting United Capital Corp. v. 183 Lorraine St. Assoc., 251 A.D.2d 400, 400, 675 N.Y.S.2d 543; see RPAPL 1341[2] ). This right is extinguished by the foreclosure sale itself, regardless of whether a deed has been delivered to the sale purchaser (see GMAC Mtge. Corp. v. Tuck, 299 A.D.2d 315, 750 N.Y.S.2d 93; EMC Mtge. Corp. v. Bobb, 296 A.D.2d 476, 745 N.Y.S.2d 204; United Capital Corp. v. 183 Lorraine St. Assoc., supra; see also Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 2.21[3] ).
The subject premises were sold at a public auction on July 26, 2002, before the filing on November 20, 2002, of the defendant Jaime Ortiz's petition for bankruptcy. Thus, at the time of his petition, Ortiz had no legal or equitable interest in the premises, and the premises were not included in the bankruptcy estate (see Matter of Rodgers, 333 F.3d 64 [2d Cir.]; Matter of Mizuno, 288 B.R. 45; Matter of Cretella, 42 B.R. 526; Matter of Ghosh, 38 B.R. 600). Therefore, the automatic bankruptcy stay did not prevent delivery of the deed to the sale purchaser (see Matter of Rodgers, supra ), and the defendants' motion was properly denied.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 20, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)