Full Balance: Landlord / Tenant

Landlord may pursue tenant for full balance of a lease

When a tenant vacates the premises prior to the expiration of the lease, the landlord is within its rights under New York law to do nothing and collect the full rent due under the lease (see Holy Props. v. Cole Prods., 87 N.Y.2d 130, 134, 637 N.Y.S.2d 964, 661 N.E.2d 694; see also Rios v. Carrillo, 53 A.D.3d 111, 113, 861 N.Y.S.2d 129). REP A8 LLC v. Aventura Tech., Inc., 68 AD3d 1087, 1089 [2d Dept 2009]; (“If the lease provides that the tenant shall be liable for rent after eviction, the provision is enforceable.” Gallery at Fulton St., LLC v. Wendnew LLC, 30 AD3d 221, 222 [1st Dept 2006]).

 

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

“I tell the landlady I got a job, I’m gonna pay the rent.”

“I tell the landlady I got a job, I’m gonna pay the rent.
She said, ‘yeah?’ I said, ‘oh yeah.’”

— George Thorogood
One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer

Gray-haired woman holding frying pan illustrating article by Richard Klass about a commercial tenant. © Vbaleha / Dreamstime.com

The landlady rented the storefront space to an interior decorating firm. This commercial tenant signed a lease to rent the store and an individual provided a personal guarantee of the lease.

Unfortunately, the tenant defaulted in the rent payments, forcing the landlady to commence an eviction proceeding in the Civil Court. In resolving the landlord-tenant proceeding, the parties signed a stipulation staying the execution of the Warrant of Eviction provided that the tenant became current on its rent. Unsurprisingly, the tenant failed to pay its rent and got evicted from the store by the City Marshal.

The landlady came to Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, to sue the former tenant for rent arrears as well as to sue the individual on his personal guarantee of the lease. In the Supreme Court case brought to collect the rent arrears, the landlady brought a motion for summary judgment before the court (meaning that no trial was needed; the case could be decided on the law alone). Her burden of proving the rent arrears was established by introducing a copy of the lease agreement, which allowed her to recover (a) past due rent, (b) eviction costs, and (c) the differential between the rent owed by the former tenant through the end of the original lease term and the rent now being paid by the new tenant for the storefront space. See, H.L. Realty LLC v. Edwards, 131 AD3d 573 [2 Dept. 2015]; Preferred Capital v. PBK, Inc., 309 AD2d 1168 [4 Dept. 2003].

Surrender, but no forgiveness!

It is common in landlord-tenant cases for a tenant to surrender possession of its rented space and give the keys back to the landlord in exchange for the landlord’s promise to forgive the rent owed. Many times, it is more valuable to a landlord to have its space back sooner to re-let to a new, paying tenant than to fight with a deadbeat tenant in court.

Here, the tenant incredibly claimed in its defense to the rent arrears collection case that the landlady’s attorney made an oral agreement with him to forgive the rent owed, and any further liability, in exchange for the surrender of the store. This disputed and unproven claim was refuted by the landlady based upon two lease provisions: (1) that all of the landlady’s rights were reserved in the event of “re-entry, expiration and/or dispossession by summary proceedings or otherwise;” and (2) that any amendments, changes, or discharges of the lease had to be contained in a signed writing. Thus, the supposed oral agreement with the attorney was unenforceable. See, Aris Industries, Inc. v. 1411 Trizechahn-Swig, LLC, 294 AD2d 107 [1 Dept. 2002].

Personal guarantee was binding

The individual who provided the personal guarantee of the lease, who was also a defendant, claimed in his defense that the copy of the personal guarantee submitted by the landlady in support of her summary judgment motion may not have been the same one that he signed. The court held that the guarantor could not claim this defense because of a strong litigation tactic – the “Notice to Admit.”

In the course of the litigation, a copy of the personal guarantee was served upon the guarantor’s attorney with a document referred to as a Notice to Admit. The Notice to Admit requires the person served to sign a sworn affidavit either admitting or denying the allegation made in it (in this case, the allegation that the guarantee was a true and accurate copy of the original). In response to the Notice to Admit, the defendant’s attorney provided an unsworn response signed only by himself and not the defendant. Accordingly, the court deemed the defendant to have failed to properly respond to the Notice to Admit, and effectively admitted the genuineness of the document. See, Rosenfeld v. Vorsanger, 5 AD3d 462 [2 Dept. 2004].

Transfer into a Trust doesn’t bar proceeding

From the time that the original lease agreement was entered into until the collection action was brought, the landlady did some estate planning. She transferred the building from herself to a revocable trust and her daughter as tenants-in-common. The tenant tried to use this fact to its advantage, claiming that the plaintiff didn’t have “standing” to sue for the rent arrears.

In dismissing this defense, the court held that the fact that the original landlady was not currently the sole owner of the building did not destroy her standing to bring the case, since a tenant-in-common has standing to seek rent arrears in a non-payment proceeding (Caprer v. Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176 [2 Dept. 2007]) and the tenant did not question the authority of the plaintiff to act as landlord under the lease (Matter of G.N. Associates v.Griffen, 178 AD2d 747 [3 Dept. 1991]).

In granting the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the Judge held that the defenses and proposed counterclaims of the defendants should be properly dismissed. Sardell v. Décor by R&J, Inc. and Freddy Halfon, Sup. Ct., Kings Co. Index No. 503234/2012, 11/16/2015.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.


R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

“What’s in a Name?” asked Shakespeare. “$300,000” we replied.

Portrait of William Shakespeare by William Page, 1873, illustrating article about notice of pendency by Richard Klass.

The child got injured as a result of a trip and fall accident in a building in Brooklyn. His mother hired a law firm to pursue his personal injury claim. The law firm recovered judgment in favor of the child against the building’s owner; however, it was having trouble collecting on the Judgment because the owner seemingly did not have premises liability coverage on the building. To enforce the Judgment, the law firm retained Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, as special collection counsel.

Typographical Error in Judgment

Once a Judgment is granted in favor of a litigant, the court clerk “dockets” the Judgment and records the exact name of the judgment debtor (CPLR 5018). After docketing, the Judgment becomes a lien against any real property owned by the debtor in that county (CPLR 5203). Unfortunately, in this particular case, the Judgment misspelled the name of the building owner/judgment debtor (The “Iguenia” Limited Partnership instead of “Iugenia” Limited Partnership). [This is not the debtor’s actual name; we have changed it for this article.]

Since the clerk indexes judgment debtors’ names exactly as they appear in judgments, a misspelling can effectively allow a judgment debtor to sell its real property to a good faith buyer without the imposition of the judgment lien. In this case, the misspelled name “Iguenia” would have allowed the building owner to sell its property to an unknowing buyer (bona fide purchaser) without having to satisfy the personal injury judgment.

Enforcement Remedy of Receivership

Given the very real possibility that the building owner could sell the property to avoid payment of the Judgment, there needed to be a mechanism to ensure that no one could claim that it did not have notice of the judgment lien. A motion to “resettle” (amend) the Judgment into the correct name might have alerted the debtor to a quick way to dispose of its assets before the Judgment could be fixed.

The strategy devised, utilizing one of the enforcement of judgment measures of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rule’s (CPLR) Article 52, was to file a petition for the court to appoint a receiver over the property under CPLR 5228. A receiver may be appointed by a court to “administer, collect, improve, lease, repair, or sell any real or personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest.”

Filing of the Notice of Pendency

The filing of the new case against the debtor gave the creditor/petitioner the ability to also file a Notice of Pendency (also referred to as a “Lis Pendens”).CPLR Section 6501 states:

A notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the possession of real property. The pendency of such an action is constructive notice, from the time of filing of the notice only, to a purchaser from, or incumbrancer against, any defendant named in a notice of pendency indexed in a block index against a block in which property affected is situated or any defendant against whose name a notice of pendency is indexed. A person whose conveyance or incumbrance is recorded after the filing of the notice is bound by all proceedings taken in the action after such filing to the same extent as a party.

Typically, in post-judgment enforcement measures, it is not necessary to file a Notice of Pendency with the court clerk because the Judgment is already filed as of record (and, thus, acts as notice to the world of its existence). Here, the filing of the Notice of Pendency with the petition for receivership was essential in order to make sure that everyone in the world knew that there was a judgment lien against the real property.

Clerk’s Rejection – and Acceptance

Sometimes, creative lawyering is not appreciated or understood by the court clerk. Upon presenting the Notice of Pendency for filing with the new petition for receivership, the clerk rejected it as an inappropriate document. With the CPLR book in hand (the lawyers’ equivalent of an NFL Rulebook), Richard Klass met with the Chief Clerk to convince him that the filing was allowed based upon the fact that the outcome of the receivership petition would necessarily affect the “possession, use or enjoyment” of the debtor’s real property. It was also urged that the clerk could not reject the filing because he was constrained by CPLR 2102(c) (“A clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose except where specifically directed to do so by statute or rules promulgated by the chief administrator of the courts, or order of the court.”).

Once the Chief Clerk accepted the filing of the Notice of Pendency, the debtor was served with the petition for receivership. The debtor brought into the picture its former insurance broker, who it alleged failed to procure the appropriate insurance policy to cover the building. The parties settled the matter with the debtor acknowledging both the Judgment and the lien and the creditor allowing the debtor to sue its insurance broker and wait for payment of the Judgment until that case resolved. In the end, the creditor received over $300,000 in satisfaction of his Judgment.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York. He may be reached by phone at (718) COURTST or e-mail at richklass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© 2015 Richard A. Klass
Credits: Image at top: Portrait of William Shakespeare by William Page, 1873. Marketing by The Innovation Works, Inc.


R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

The Rent Is Too Damn High

Frightened woman in fashionable, white apartment. copyright: PlusONE/Shutterstock.com

The tenant lived in an apartment building in Brooklyn for several years. She dutifully paid her rent to her landlord. After several years, she discovered that the rental amount she was paying exceeded the legally-allowed amount for her rent-stabilized apartment according to New York State law.

DHCR Rent Overcharge

After the tenant realized that she was paying higher-than-permitted rent, she filed a Rent Overcharge Application with the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The DHCR, a State agency, enforces the regulations as to how much rent a landlord may legally charge a tenant. (Point in fact: A tenant may also commence a court case for rent overcharge or assert the claim as a defense in a Housing Court proceeding brought by the landlord). In this case, the tenant proved to the Rent Administrator that there was a rent overcharge by the landlord which exceeded the legal regulated rent.

Penalty phase

Once the DHCR determined that the tenant was overcharged for rent, an appropriate penalty was to be assessed against the landlord. Sometimes, the penalty is merely the amount above the legal regulated rent plus accrued interest. Other times, as in this case, the penalty for a willful overcharge equals three times the amount of the overcharge (treble damages) for two years prior to filing the complaint. In this case, the landlord was penalized with treble damages as detailed in the Final Order.

The Final Order of the Rent Administrator was timely challenged by the landlord through its filing of a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) with the DHCR Commissioner (which had to be done within 35 days of the Order to stop the tenant from collecting the penalty). After the landlord’s PAR was decided and the landlord lost again, the landlord timely filed a court proceeding known as an “Article 78” to further challenge the DHCR’s Final Order and Order after the PAR (which had to be done within 60 days after the PAR Order). The state court judge determined in the Article 78 proceeding that the DHCR acted appropriately and sustained the treble damage award.

Enforcement of the DHCR Final Order

Now that the DHCR Order was final, the tenant needed to collect the money from the landlord. She retained Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, to collect the debt.

Under DHCR rules, a tenant may enforce the rent overcharge order either through certain deductions from current rent due to the landlord or through entering a money judgment with the County Clerk’s Office (this option is usually selected when the amount is very large or the tenant has moved from the apartment already). Here, the Judgment was entered against the landlord and enforcement measures were immediately taken to collect the Judgment, including docketing a lien against the landlord’s apartment building and issuing an Execution to the Sheriff to levy upon the landlord/judgment debtor. After the full-court press by Richard A. Klass, the Judgment was collected and the tenant received payment pursuant to the DHCR Rent Overcharge finding.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

A Man’s House is (Not Always) His Castle

Neuschwanstein Castle, in Bavaria, Germany, which looks similar to Cinderella's castle in Disney World, used to illustrate both an e-book and an article by Richard Klass with titles such as " A Man’s Home Is (Not Always) His Castle: RPAPL 881 License to Enter Neighbor’s Property. "

A New York City college bought an old garage on a residential street with the intention of eventually tearing it down and using the vacant lot in the development of a 17-story building. The owner of the adjacent apartment building was more than glad to have the college demolish the garage, which had become an eyesore. In order to demolish the garage, however, the college needed to enter the adjacent property to erect bridge scaffolding around the apartment building. But the college offered little protection to the owner other than promising to pay for any damage it might cause to the apartment building during the demolition.

Alleging that the apartment building owner refused to consent, the college brought a petition for a court order to allow its contractor to enter upon the adjacent property to erect the scaffolding. The adjacent apartment building owner retained Richard A. Klass, Esq., Your Court Street Lawyer, to oppose the petition and negotiate a license agreement with the college to grant access, but only upon meeting certain, reasonable conditions.

In the current economic and political climate in New York City, which encourages building more and more housing units for the multitudes, it is not surprising that current property owners are experiencing “growing pains.” Among those “growing pains” are the inconvenience and annoyance they experience when a developer buys land next to their property, seeking to build on that land, and needs to gain access to the neighboring property to do the work. Such access may be needed to move equipment, build up to the property line, or deliver material to the building site.

RPAPL 881 grants a license to enter property

New York law seeks to find middle ground between the property developer and the neighboring owner so that the developer may build its structure while the neighbor can be left relatively undisturbed. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) Section 881 provides as follows:

When an owner or lessee seeks to make improvements or repairs to real property so situated that such improvements or repairs cannot be made by the owner or lessee without entering the premises of an adjoining owner or his lessee, and permission so to enter has been refused, the owner or lessee seeking to make such improvements or repairs may commence a special proceeding for a license so to enter pursuant to article four of the civil practice law and rules. The petition and affidavits, if any, shall state the facts making such entry necessary and the date or dates on which entry is sought. Such license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires. The licensee shall be liable to the adjoining owner or his lessee for actual damages occurring as a result of the entry.

Essentially, if a developer must gain access to the adjacent property, it must first make a request upon that property owner. If turned down, the developer can then file a petition to ask the court to grant a license to enter the premises for a reasonable period of time.

Courts apply a ‘balancing test’

The court must balance the competing interests of the parties and should grant the issuance of the license when necessary, under reasonable conditions, and where the inconvenience to the adjacent property owner is outweighed by the hardship of its neighbor if the license is refused. In Rosma Development LLC v. South, the court granted a developer a license to enter the adjacent property, recognizing that the developer’s property interests in completing its project (and as quickly as possible in order to avoid unnecessary delay and expense) outweighed the temporary inconvenience to the neighbor.

Provisions of a license agreement

Courts have held that reasonable conditions of a license agreement under RPAPL 881 may include:

  1. Providing the owner with the details and schedule of the work to be done;
  2. Conducting pre-construction inspections and monitoring for cracks, vibrations, and noise during construction;
  3. Paying the owner’s fees for engineers, attorney’s fees, and other expenses;
  4. Imposing penalties in the event of noncompliance with the license, including the failure to complete the work in a timely fashion;
  5. Taking steps after construction is complete to close up lot-line windows or resolve any structural wall issues; and
  6. Ensuring that an adequate liability insurance policy is in effect in the event that actual damages occur.

In resolving the college’s petition, the parties negotiated an extensive agreement that ultimately allowed the judge to approve the license to enter the adjoining property.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Tender of Payment

A seldom-used tactic in litigation is the “tender” of payment by a defendant of an amount which is believed to be due to the plaintiff. If the proper amount is tendered, and the plaintiff does not accept that amount, then the defendant will not be found liable for interest and court costs.

This legal tactic was successfully used by the author in a case involving the building of a large boys’ yeshiva. The yeshiva purchased a building to tear it down and construct a new school. The prior owner took back a mortgage from the yeshiva for $900,000, with interest-only payments for 15 years and no prepayments allowed. Shortly after the purchase, the yeshiva obtained work permits to demolish the existing structure to build the new school building.

The mortgagee/prior owner brought an injunction action, claiming that the demolition of the existing structure violated the terms of the mortgage (a common clause in the form of mortgage states that the mortgagee’s consent is needed before alteration of the structure on the mortgaged premises in order to protect the value of the collateral). During the course of ongoing court conferences, the yeshiva offered to pay off the mortgage in full, but the mortgagee was insistent on obtaining not only the principal amount of $900,000 but also the future 14 1/2 years’ worth of interest (a windfall of about $1.2 million).

The mortgagee then decided to unilaterally declare a default under the mortgage, alleging that the disconnection of the water and electric lines amounted to an alteration of the structure; her attorney served an “acceleration notice,” demanding the payment of the mortgage in full plus accrued interest.

From an initial review of the situation, it looked bleak for the yeshiva. But, upon further examination, the concept of “tender” saved the day! The yeshiva collected pledges totaling $911,000 (the principal amount plus accrued interest to the date of tender) and deposited that amount with the Clerk of Kings County as a “tender.” A motion was then made to dismiss both the injunction and foreclosure actions based upon the tender.

The court held that there was a valid tender, since the mortgagee accelerated the mortgage note, seeking the unpaid principal amount with “accrued” interest. Based upon the ambiguity of the language of the mortgage note, “accrued interest” may have meant interest accrued only to the date of default or future interest past the date of default.

Tender can be effectively utilized in situations where the defendant expects to owe something to the plaintiff but nowhere near the amount claimed. A tender can place a greater onus on the plaintiff to substantiate additional damages. Further, it can be a good method of settling a case by offering the plaintiff an amount which it may be willing to accept to terminate the litigation.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

New York foreclosure cases nearing 6 year statute of limitations

As reported today in the New York Times, there are increasing numbers of foreclosure cases in New York State where lenders may be unable to seize homes.  Why?  Because the State’s statute of limitations on foreclosure cases may be exceeded.

If you have a foreclosure case that has been dragging on for nearly six years, there may be relief on the horizon.

Does this sound similar to your situation?  If so, and if you require legal representation, call my office for more information.

The full New York Times article is available here: http://nyti.ms/1G6IuQ3

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

———–
copyr. 2015 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

A Man’s Home is his Castle (and Notice of Pendency, an overview)

One of the most important ownership rights in this country is the ownership of one’s house. The old phrase “A Man’s Home is his Castle,” was born from the basic concept that ownership of real estate is the hallmark of freedom.

Contrast the above concept with the other, important concept: we all live in this world together. In living together, we necessarily engage in conduct that requires us to act and react to events external from our personal dominions.

These two concepts intersect at various times, but one place where they come into direct contact is when the law touches upon a person’s home. This may come about when one sells or buys a house; gets injured on someone’s property; obtains or gives a mortgage on the house; leases part or all of a building; or invests in commercial or residential property.

Various issues may develop into litigation concerning real estate matters, including:

Contracts: Litigation around contracts to buy or sell real estate can arise.

“Pushy neighbors”: Disputes over property lines, construction or zoning.

Auctions: Transactions and litigation surrounding the purchase of residential or commercial property, condominium units, or cooperative apartments at foreclosure auctions.

Fraud: Mortgage fraud, Deed theft, or breaches of confidential relationships.

Specific performance: Forcing the seller to close title even though he doesn’t want to.

Partition and Sale: When co-owners of the real estate no longer agree about ownership or management of the property, they can seek a sort-of “divorce” by bringing a partition-and-sale action to have the court order the property sold and the net proceeds divided.

Notice of Pendency, an overview

When litigation surrounding real estate is involved, there is generally a need or desire to file a “ Notice of Pendency ” (or commonly known as a “Lis Pendens”). This is a notice to any potential purchasers or mortgagees that there is litigation involving the property which may affect its “title, use or enjoyment.” This provides protection that the owner of the real property will not sell, transfer, mortgage, or dispose of it, thus leaving the suing party high and dry, before the litigation is over.

Anyone who decides to buy or give a loan with the property as collateral will think twice, knowing that someone out there is making a claim against the property. This can be a very powerful tool, given that owners of property usually have an inalienable right to sell their property as they choose.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

———–
copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

What the Seller of a Cooperative Apartment Should Know

The owner of an apartment (also referred to as a “unit”) in a cooperative apartment building (“co-op”) must be aware of several matters relating to the sale of the unit.

1. Transferability

Most unit owners are permitted to sell their unit to anyone they choose. However, the owner should be aware of any special rules relating to the sale of the unit to others such as restrictions on shares or rights of first refusal.

2. Pay-off of mortgage

If the unit owner has borrowed money, using the co-op unit as collateral, then a “pay-off” statement should be ordered from the lender. Also, unlike a mortgage upon real estate, the lender or its representative must be present at the closing (because the lender has typically taken the actual shares of stock and proprietary lease into its possession at the time of the loan).

3. Liens/judgments

If there are any liens against the unit owner, ranging from tax liens to judgments to home equity lines, those liens must be paid at or before the closing. The buyer’s attorney will send a judgment/lien search to the seller to identify any such liens to be cleared.

4. Flip taxes

Some co-ops impose a “flip tax” or transfer charge upon the seller of a unit. These flip taxes can be based upon a percentage of the sale price, flat amount, percentage based upon the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price, or some other computation. The unit owner should find out what those flip taxes will be before selling the unit in order to ensure that the sale price will cover the flip tax, along with any other charges or liens to be paid at the closing.

5. Original documents

Unless the unit owner has a lender, who is holding the shares of stock and proprietary lease in escrow, then the owner must locate and produce the originals. If they have been lost, duplicate originals can be drawn.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

———–
copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Debt Collection Tips: Docketing the Judgment

Once the creditor has obtained a Judgment from a court, the collection process has now begun.  In the context of collecting the money due on the Judgment, it may be necessary to “docket” the Judgment in the County Clerk’s Office.

In each county of the State, there is a court of general jurisdiction called the “Supreme Court.”  In some counties, towns, cities, and villages, there are lower courts (such as Civil Court, District Court, etc.).  Judgments entered in those courts are not automatic liens upon any realty that the debtor may own in the county.  Rather, a “Transcript of Judgment” must be obtained from the court and filed with the County Clerk to create the lien.  Once docketed, the Transcript of Judgment will serve as notice to others that there is a lien upon any realty owned by the debtor; other parties are now aware that the lien must be paid according to its priority.

Judgments entered in a Supreme Court case are automatically docketed with the County Clerk.

Unlike New Jersey or some other states, which have state-wide recognition, the Judgment must be docketed by the filing of a Transcript of Judgment in each county in which the debtor has realty in order to create the lien.

The docketing of a Judgment is also essential when attempting to issue an Income Execution to a County Sheriff in another county (where, perhaps, the employer of a debtor is located).  Another purpose of docketing a Judgment may be where the Judgment was entered in federal District Court and the creditor wants to use a Sheriff instead of a United States Marshall.

— by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

———–
copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post