Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying nonparty Adam Plotch's request under RPAPL 231 to direct the sale of partitioned real property to him for his $500,000 bid. The court held that the referee had discretion to set a minimum sale price and that the bid was properly rejected, noting the absence of the property owners at the sale and Plotch's failure to submit competent supporting evidence.
Holdings
- The referee had discretion to set the property's minimum sale price at the sale.
- Plotch was not entitled to relief under RPAPL 231 because the referee properly rejected his bid, the property owners were not present at the sale, and he failed to submit competent evidence substantiating his allegations.
Questions Presented
- Whether the referee had discretion to set a minimum sale price at the partition sale.
- Whether Plotch was entitled under RPAPL 231 to have the property sold to him for his rejected $500,000 bid despite the bid's inadequacy and irregularities at the sale.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (9)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bueno, 222 AD3d 940, 940-941(followed)
- Ricatto v Ricatto, 4 AD3d 514, 515(followed)
- Concept 9, LLC v 614 Realty, LLC, 189 AD3d 992, 993-994(followed)
- Clinton Hill Holding 1, LLC v Kathy & Tania, Inc., 142 AD3d 631, 633(followed)
- Salvation Army v Simpson, 268 NY 499(followed)
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v Hartridge, 58 AD3d 584, 585(followed)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Nunez, 208 AD3d 711, 713-714(followed)
- Emigrant Funding Corp. v Nunez, 199 AD3d 651, 651(followed)
- NJCC-NYS Community Restoration Fund, LLC v Ruiz, 228 AD3d 769, 770-771(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…