Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint challenging a New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development lien for relocation expenses. The court held that, absent a defect on the face of the lien notice, the lien’s validity must be adjudicated in a foreclosure proceeding rather than through the plaintiffs’ direct action.
Holdings
- When there is no defect on the face of a notice of lien, disputes regarding the lien's validity must await trial in a foreclosure proceeding; therefore, the complaint seeking a declaration invalidating the lien and enjoining its enforcement was properly dismissed under CPLR 3211(a)(7).
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs could obtain dismissal of the lien-related action under CPLR 3211(a)(7) when the notice of lien contained no facial defect and the asserted dispute concerned the validity of the lien.
- Whether the validity of the lien had to be resolved in a foreclosure proceeding rather than in the plaintiffs' pre-foreclosure declaratory and injunctive action.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (4)
- Matter of Retek v City of New York, 14 AD3d 708, 709(followed)
- Matter of Lowe, 4 AD3d 476, 476(followed)
- Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y., 29 NY3d 45(followed)
- 2922 LLC v Been, 158 AD3d 428, 429(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…