Flushing Savings Bank, FSB, Appellant, v. Pierre Bitar, Also Known as Pierre M. Bitar, Respondent, Et Al., Defendants

Flushing Savings Bank, FSB, Appellant, v. Pierre Bitar, Also Known as Pierre M. Bitar, Respondent, Et Al., Defendants

The appraiser's four‑paragraph affidavit was conclusory and lacked the factual foundation (no comparable sales data, valuation analysis or description of property condition) required to meet the lender's initial burden to establish fair market value under RPAPL §1371; therefore the deficiency motion could not be granted, and the proper remedy is remittal to the trial court to permit the lender to submit additional admissible proof or for the court to otherwise determine fair market value.

Citation
25 N.Y.3d 307; 33 N.E.3d 1282; 12 N.Y.S.3d 12
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff (mortgagee): Flushing Savings Bank, FSB; Respondent/defendant/mortgagor/obligor: Pierre Bitar; Amicus Curiae: Attorney General of the State of New York
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
4 June 2015
Case Number
84
Procedural Posture
Mortgage Foreclosure; Deficiency Judgment / Appeal to Court of Appeals From Appellate Division; Remitted to Supreme Court, Kings County for Further Proceedings
Outcome
Order modified without costs by remitting matter to Supreme Court, Kings County for further proceedings in accordance with opinion; as modified, affirmed.
Legal Topics
Deficiency Judgment, Fair Market Value Appraisal, RPAPL §1371 Compliance, Evidentiary Burden, Remittal for Further Proceedings
Source Language
English
Real Property Foreclosure Evidence Civil Procedure Deficiency Judgment Fair Market Value Appraisal RPAPL §1371 Compliance Evidentiary Burden +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flushing Savings Bank, FSB

Appellant/plaintiff (mortgagee)

Pierre Bitar

Respondent/defendant/mortgagor/obligor

Attorney General of the State of New York

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Mortgage Foreclosure; Deficiency Judgment / Appeal to Court of Appeals From Appellate Division; Remitted to Supreme Court, Kings County for Further Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What proof must a lender initially submit to establish fair market value under RPAPL §1371 for a deficiency judgment
  2. 2 Whether an unopposed but conclusory appraiser affidavit suffices
  3. 3 What steps a court must take when a lender's initial proof is insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The appraiser's four‑paragraph affidavit was conclusory and lacked the factual foundation (no comparable sales data, valuation analysis or description of property condition) required to meet the lender's initial burden to establish fair market value under RPAPL §1371; therefore the deficiency motion could not be granted, and the proper remedy is remittal to the trial court to permit the lender to submit additional admissible proof or for the court to otherwise determine fair market value.

Court Disposition

Order modified without costs by remitting matter to Supreme Court, Kings County for further proceedings in accordance with opinion; as modified, affirmed.

Orders

  • Remit case to Supreme Court, Kings County for further proceedings to determine fair market value consistent with RPAPL §1371
  • Modify Appellate Division order without costs