Opinion
12-07-2016
SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., respondent, v. Carrie COAKLEY, et al., defendants; 4798 Fourth Associates, Inc., nonparty-appellant.
Kenneth R. Berman, Forest Hills, NY, for nonparty-appellant. Fein Such & Crane LLP, Westbury, NY (Michael S. Hanusek and Richard A. Gerbino of counsel), for respondent.
Kenneth R. Berman, Forest Hills, NY, for nonparty-appellant.
Fein Such & Crane LLP, Westbury, NY (Michael S. Hanusek and Richard A. Gerbino of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, nonparty 4798 Fourth Associates, Inc., the successful bidder at a judicial sale of the subject premises, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated October 17, 2013, which denied its motion, inter alia, in effect, to adjourn the closing date for the sale of the property and to compel the plaintiff to correct recorded assignments of the mortgage.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant was the successful bidder at a judicial sale of the subject premises. Prior to the closing, the appellant moved, inter alia, in effect, to adjourn the closing and to compel the plaintiff to correct alleged defects in recorded assignments of the mortgage, claiming that the referee could not otherwise convey marketable title. The Supreme Court disagreed, and denied the motion.
" ‘As a general rule, a purchaser at a foreclosure sale is entitled to a good, marketable title’ " (Rose Dev. Corp. v. Einhorn, 65 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 886 N.Y.S.2d 59, quoting Jorgensen v. Endicott Trust Co., 100 A.D.2d 647, 648, 473 N.Y.S.2d 275 ; see Heller v. Cohen, 154 N.Y. 299, 306, 48 N.E. 527 ). " ‘A marketable title is a title free from reasonable doubt, but not from every doubt’ " (Bank of N.Y. v. Segui, 91 A.D.3d 689, 689, 937 N.Y.S.2d 95, quoting Barrera v. Chambers, 38 A.D.3d 699, 700, 833 N.Y.S.2d 544 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Voorheesville Rod & Gun Club v. Tompkins Co., 82 N.Y.2d 564, 571, 606 N.Y.S.2d 132, 626 N.E.2d 917 ; Laba v. Carey, 29 N.Y.2d 302, 311, 327 N.Y.S.2d 613, 277 N.E.2d 641 ; DeJong v. Mandelbaum, 122 A.D.2d 772, 774, 505 N.Y.S.2d 659 ; Jorgensen v. Endicott Trust Co., 100 A.D.2d at 648, 473 N.Y.S.2d 275 ). " ‘[S]omething more than a mere assertion of a right is essential to create an unmarketable or doubtful title’ " (Bank of N.Y. v. Segui, 91 A.D.3d at 690, 937 N.Y.S.2d 95, quoting Nasha Holding Corp. v. Ridge Bldg. Corp., 221 App.Div. 238, 243, 223 N.Y.S. 223 ; see Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v. Leveau, 46 A.D.3d 727, 848 N.Y.S.2d 691 ). Here, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the referee could not convey marketable title (see Jorgensen v. Endicott Trust Co., 100 A.D.2d at 648, 473 N.Y.S.2d 275 ; see also Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v. Leveau, 46 A.D.3d at 727–728, 848 N.Y.S.2d 691 ), particularly since the former owner and mortgagor of the property is barred from challenging the judgment of foreclosure and sale on the basis of any alleged irregularities in the assignments of mortgage (see Signature Bank v. Epstein, 95 A.D.3d 1199, 1200, 945 N.Y.S.2d 347 ; Long Is. Sav. Bank v. Mihalios, 269 A.D.2d 502, 503, 704 N.Y.S.2d 483 ; see also SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 128 A.D.3d 674, 675, 10 N.Y.S.3d 105 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion, inter alia, in effect, to adjourn the closing date for the sale of the property and to compel the plaintiff to correct recorded assignments of the mortgage.