Nubridge Commercial Lending REO SPV I Inc. v. 51 East 126th Street, LLC

Background

The plaintiff submitted a proposed order asking the court to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court reviewed the plaintiff’s papers and similar foreclosure-sale orders issued in the Southern District of New York.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court stated that several parts of the proposed order required clarification or modification before an order could be issued:

- Requests to dismiss the action against particular parties or to amend the caption had to be made through separate motions, rather than included in a request for a foreclosure-and-sale judgment. - The proposed order did not identify whether the sale would be conducted by a court-appointed referee or by another official, such as the sheriff of the relevant county. If a referee would conduct the sale, the plaintiff was asked to recommend one; if a government official would conduct it, the proposed order had to identify that official. - The proposed order did not identify the publication that would provide notice of the sale under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 231, or state whether the court or the officer conducting the sale would select the publication. - The proposed order did not state where the sale proceeds would be deposited. - It required a later resale if the plaintiff or an affiliate purchased the property, but the court said similar district orders did not contain that provision and that its necessity was not apparent. - It did not provide compensation if the sale were adjourned or canceled. - It did not specify the attorney’s fees sought. The court stated that, if the $7,305 amount identified in the plaintiff’s papers was the appropriate amount, it should be included in any revised proposed order. - It used defined terms such as “Terms of Sale,” “Referee’s Report,” “Referee’s Deed,” and “Surplus Monies” without clearly defining them or referring to statutory definitions. The court also found it unclear whether lowercase versions of those terms referred to the same things.

Ruling and Required Next Steps

The court ordered the plaintiff to file a letter addressing the listed issues by January 6, 2022, and permitted the plaintiff, at its discretion, to file a new proposed order. The court separately ordered that any motion to dismiss the action against specific parties or amend the caption be filed separately from any request for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The order did not grant the requested foreclosure-and-sale judgment at that time.

Judge

The order was signed by Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Judge.