In M* Investors, LP v. H*, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court's discretionary decision to grant an extension of time for a foreclosure sale.
The case arose from a long-running foreclosure action initiated by M* Investors, which had obtained a judgment of foreclosure and sale back in January 2017. Over the years, the plaintiff sought multiple extensions to conduct the sale, including one in 2019, and another following the appointment of a substitute referee. The most recent motion, granted in July 2022, was challenged by a defendant in the case.
The legal framework centers on RPAPL 1351(1), which mandates that a foreclosure judgment direct the sale of the property within 90 days. However, CPLR 2004 provides courts with discretion to extend such deadlines “upon good cause shown,” even after the original period has expired. The court may weigh factors such as the length and reason for the delay, and whether the opposing party suffered any prejudice.
Here, the plaintiff cited the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting foreclosure moratorium as the primary reason for the delay. The court found this explanation sufficient, especially since the defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the extension. The appellate court agreed, holding that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion under CPLR 2004.
This decision reflects a pragmatic judicial posture: while statutory deadlines are important, they are not immutable when external disruptions—like a global pandemic—intervene. The ruling also signals that defendants opposing such extensions must do more than object; they must show concrete harm or prejudice to overcome a well-supported motion for additional time.
The only thing foreclosed was urgency ....
# # #
DECISION