HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Proctor

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an order denying defendant Ron Hillman’s motion to dismiss a mortgage foreclosure complaint in its entirety. The court held that Hillman’s argument that he was a necessary and indispensable party was improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, that the foreclosure action could continue without him because his rights would remain unaffected by the judgment.

Holdings

1. Hillman's argument that he was a necessary and indispensable party under RPAPL 1311 was improperly raised for the first time on appeal and was therefore not considered on that basis.
2. The absence of Hillman, even if he were a necessary party, did not prevent continuation of the mortgage foreclosure action because the rights of an absent necessary party are simply unaffected by the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hillman could argue for the first time on appeal that he was a necessary and indispensable party to the mortgage foreclosure action under RPAPL 1311.
2. Whether the foreclosure action could continue despite Hillman's absence after the claims against him were severed and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

affirmed