[Download] "Silver Co. v. Acifra" by Kings County New York Supreme Court ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Silver Co. v. Acifra
- Author : Kings County New York Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 30, 2005
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
Atchuda Barkr, a non-party, has moved this court to "intervene and upon intervention have this court declare that plaintiffs lien has been cutoff by a prior foreclosure action. . ." vis-a-vis the premises commonly known as 461 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, NY. Mr. Barkr notes that he obtained the subject premises at a HUD foreclosure sale on December 2, 1999 as a result of the defendants (Acifras) default on a mortgage that it had given to the United States of America on or about April 22, 1983. Mr. Barkr adds that "at the time of the said foreclosure sale, the record title revealed a judgment held by Nevmar Construction Corp. (the plaintiffs predecessor in interest) against Acirfa, Inc., recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Kings on January 16, 1991," and that notice had been served via certified mail, return receipt requested upon both entities [Nevmar and Acifra, pursuant to 12 USC 3707]. Furthermore, the notice of default and foreclosure sale had been recorded in the Kings County Clerks Office on October 22, 1999, and published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and Daily Bulletin newspapers [pursuant to 12 USC 3708]. Mr. Barkr also points out a series of judgment assignments; to wit, Nevmar to Neville Pinnock, dated July 14, 1993, Pinnock to The Silver Company, dated July 14, 1993 [recorded July 26, 1993], and The Silver Company to David Lefkowitz, dated November 18, 2003. Mr. Barkrs deed from HUD was recorded on March 6, 2000. Finally, Mr. Barkr asserts that "it is well settled law that the recordation of the Notice is constructive notice sufficient to bar the interests of a bona fide purchaser." (Citing In re Davidson Assoc. v. Housing and Urban Dev., 103 BR 440, and In re Euro-Swiss Intl; Corp., 33 BR 882). Lastly, Mr. Barkr asserts that any failure to have served The Silver Company is of no consequence since Mr. Lefkowitz ". . .lacks standing to assert defenses on behalf of other defendants or non-appearing parties."(Citing, Spiegel v. Ferraro, 142 AD2d 573, 529 NYS2d 908 [2d Dept. 1988]), and in any event ". . .even if Mr. Lefkowitz interest were not cut off by said foreclosure sale, the current owner may commence a strict foreclosure action to cut off any interest Mr. Lefkowitz may have in the premises." (Citing, NYCTL-1996-1 Trust v. Guthartz, 293 AD2d 455, 739 NYS2d 646 [2d Dept. 2002]).