The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v…
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Langston
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-06560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In The Secretary v. Langston, Judge Abrams denied HUD’s default-judgment motion against city agencies without prejudice and deferred ruling against the remaining defendants.
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the three New York City agency defendants, and the remaining defendants in the foreclosure action. The city agencies received a denial of default judgment without prejudice; the ruling on default judgment against the remaining defendants was deferred.
What happened
In The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Langston, the Department asked the court to enter judgment because the defendants had not appeared at a hearing or responded to the case. Some individual defendants later sent the court a letter, but they still had not formally appeared or filed a response.
The court ruled that the Department’s allegations against three New York City agencies were too vague. The complaint called them possible lienholders based on liens against people with names similar to people connected to the property, but it did not provide the details required for claims involving city liens.
The court denied the Department’s request for default judgment against the city agencies without prejudice, deferred ruling on the request against the other defendants, and gave the Department one opportunity to file another amended complaint. Judge Abrams also reminded defendants that they must formally respond if they intend to defend the case.
The detailed version
- The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v… · No. 1:19-cv-06560
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
The court held a hearing on why default judgment should not be entered for the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development based on the relief requested in the First Amended Complaint. None of the defendants appeared at that hearing. The court later considered a letter sent pro se—that is, without a lawyer—by Adreana Langston, Seybou Douma, and James Crawford. The court had not received a response from those defendants by the time of the order, and no defendant had formally appeared. The court also stated that it had not yet entered a final judgment.
Claims Against the City Defendants
The Secretary sought default judgment against the New York City Environmental Control Board, the New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, and the New York City Department of Finance Parking Violations Bureau. The complaint identified those entities as possible subordinate lienholders based on alleged liens against names similar to Doris T. Langston, James Crawford, or both.
The court held that these allegations did not satisfy New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 202-a. In a foreclosure case, that law requires detailed facts explaining the city entity’s particular interest in or lien on the property and why the entity is named as a defendant. If the lien is based on a judgment, the complaint must also provide specified information about that judgment, including the court, recording date, clerk’s office, parties, and a brief description of the judgment’s basis or nature. The court found the allegations against the City Defendants conclusory and lacking details about the alleged liens.
Rulings and Next Steps
The court denied the motion for default judgment against the City Defendants without prejudice. The court deferred ruling on the motion against the remaining defendants because the application raised in the Individual Defendants’ letter had not yet been resolved. The Secretary was given one opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint by September 4, 2023, if it chose to do so.
The court reminded defendants that, if they intended to defend the action, they had to formally file an answer or other response within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk was directed to mail the order to the address of the mortgaged property, which the court identified as the only address provided for any of the Individual Defendants. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.