Opinion
Submitted November 9, 1999
December 13, 1999
In an action, inter alia, to compel a mortgage foreclosure sale, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated June 25, 1998, which, among other things, granted the cross motion of the defendants Marie Bazile s/h/a Marie Darcelin and Greenpoint Bank for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Stuart B. Pollack, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Rivkin, Radler Kremer, Uniondale, N.Y. (Evan H. Krinick and Merril S. Biscone of counsel), for respondent Marie Bazile s/h/a Marie Darcelin.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff was the successful bidder at a mortgage foreclosure sale. Although he signed the memorandum of sale and made a 10% deposit on the purchase price, the sale was never consummated. He thereafter commenced this action seeking, inter alia, specific performance. However, the plaintiff's remedy is an application before the court in the underlying foreclosure action, not a plenary action (see, Lane v. Chantilly Corp., 251 N.Y. 435 ; Goodwin v. Simonson, 74 N.Y. 133 ; National Bank of Stamford v. Van Keuren, 184 A.D.2d 92 ; Jorgenson v. Endicott Trust Co., 100 A.D.2d 647; State Bank v. Wilchinsky, 128 App. Div. 485 ; Burton v. Linn, 21 App. Div. 609 ; Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures, § 30.05[3]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.
RITTER, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.