Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision addresses a motion for leave to intervene in a mortgage foreclosure action. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the proposed intervenor's cross-motion, ruling that the request to intervene was untimely given the intervenor's constructive and actual notice of the pending action years prior. The underlying foreclosure judgment and sale order were consequently upheld.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Montauk R & M, Inc.'s cross‑motion for leave to intervene was timely under CPLR 1012.
Holdings
- The cross‑motion for leave to intervene was untimely and therefore denied.
Key quotations
“[I]n determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, a court should consider the time between the proposed intervenor's knowledge of the basis for the motion and the making of the motion, and whether any delay in seeking intervention caused prejudice to a party” (840)
“Under these circumstances, that branch of Montauk's cross‑motion which was for leave to intervene was untimely.”
Factual background
In July 2010 Richard Severe executed a $431,193 note secured by a Brooklyn mortgage, which was later assigned to U.S. Bank. The bank sued for foreclosure in 2012. The property was conveyed to Blue Star in 2013, which conveyed it to Montauk in 2020. Montauk began a quiet‑title action in 2021 and did not move to intervene until August 2022, more than two years after acquiring the property.
Procedural history
The plaintiff U.S. Bank commenced a foreclosure action in December 2012. After a series of assignments, the mortgage was owned by the bank. The Supreme Court, Kings County entered a default judgment and appointed a referee in 2016. Montauk R & M, Inc. acquired the property in 2020, commenced a quiet‑title action in 2021, and filed a cross‑motion for leave to intervene in August 2022. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Montauk appealed the denial.