Pines At Setauket, Inc. v. Retirement Management Group Inc.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pines at Setauket, Inc. v. Retirement Management Group Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. 366 Realty LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2025)
- MBL Life Assurance Corp. v. 555 Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Barclays Bank of New York, N. A. v. Strathmore Five Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Northern Central Bank v. Corneby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Colony Nyro Partners, L.P. v. Merritt & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- First National Bank of Boston v. Schumacher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated March 29, 1994, as denied its motion pursuant to RPAPL 1371 for leave to enter a deficiency judgment, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 27, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.
Ordered that the order dated September 27, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents Retirement Management Group Inc., Howard Chamberlain, David Kazarian, and Kenneth Messier are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against the defendants Retirement Management Group Inc., Howard Chamberlain, David Kazarian, Kenneth Messier, Robert Fuller, Marvin Smernoff, Peter Bryden, and James D. Salter (hereinafter the respondents). The Supreme Court found that the language used in the judgment of foreclosure and sale was insufficient to adjudicate deficiency liability against any of the respondents (see, Bankers Trust Co. v 1 E. 88th St. Corp., 283 NY 369; Cassia Corp. v North Hills Holding Corp., 281 App Div 709, affd 305 NY 837; see generally, 2 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 34.02 [3]). We agree. The language employed merely granted the plaintiff permission to seek a deficiency judgment. It did not adjudicate the right to obtain a deficiency judgment (cf., 15 Carmody-Wait 2d § 92:243; 2 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 27.08 [1] [a]). Therefore, the court did not err by denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a deficiency judgment.
However, the plaintiff appears to have satisfied the requirements of RPAPL 1371 as to the defendants Howard Chamberlain and Kenneth Messier and, but for an error of draftsmanship in the judgment of foreclosure and sale, the plaintiff apparently would be entitled to a sizeable deficiency judgment. In light of these circumstances, our determination of this appeal is without prejudice to the plaintiff in moving to amend the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Such an amendment might be appropriate if the respondents would not be prejudiced thereby (see, CPLR 5019 [a]; Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank v Maplewood Land Dev. Co., 210 AD2d 606; Haven Assocs. v Donro Realty Corp., 149 AD2d 667; Security Pac. Mtge. & Real Estate Servs. v Herald Ctr., 731 F Supp 605). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.