Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.)
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In September 1994 a judgment of foreclosure was rendered against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $293,942.19. In April 1996 after numerous proceedings, a court-appointed Referee sold the mortgaged property at a foreclosure sale for $355,000. The Referee's report of sale recommended that the entire sale proceeds be awarded to the plaintiff to satisfy the judgment of foreclosure and as payment for additional accrued interest and costs incurred by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to confirm the Referee's report. The defendant cross-moved to stay confirmation alleging, inter alia, that he was entitled to the "surplus". The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendant's cross motion. We now affirm.
The Supreme Court did not err in confirming the Referee's report which recommended awarding the plaintiff the amount of the judgment plus interest and costs, including, inter alia, the cost of the foreclosure sale and carrying charges ( see, RPAPL 1354; Emery v. Fishmarket Inn, 173 A.D.2d 765; Pregno Agency v Letterese, 112 A.D.2d 1032, 1033).
The defendant's wife was not named on the mortgage note and was, therefore, not a necessary party to this action ( see, Arbor Natl. Mtge. v. Goldsmith, 154 Misc.2d 853; RPAPL 1311; Real Property Law § 190). Thus, the plaintiff's failure to properly serve her would not warrant vacatur of the notice of pendency ( see, Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, 147 A.D.2d 208; Dashew v. Cantor, 85 A.D.2d 619; RPAPL 1331).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.