Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/63-misc-2d-499-625253651
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:35:18+00:00

Document:
63 Misc.2d 499, Sadow v. Poskin Realty Corp.
Party Name: Sadow v. Poskin Realty Corp.
POSKIN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County, Part I.
[312 N.Y.S.2d 904] Kornblum & Shlefstein, Brooklyn, for claimant, Louis D. krasner, inc.
Louis P. Rosenberg, Brooklyn, for claimant, Brewster House, Inc.
Marvin Usdin, Massapequa, for tenants.
This is a motion in a surplus money proceedings pursuant to section 1362 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to confirm the report of the referee appointed to ascertain and report the amounts due to those persons who have liens upon the surplus moneys realized upon the sale of the mortgaged premises and to ascertain the priorities of those liens.
of the Estate of [312 N.Y.S.2d 905] Nathan Mittag, deceased (Greenfield), for $23,529.32, by virtue of holding all the issued and outstanding shares of stock of Poskin as collateral security for loans made to David Merkin and Harold B. Posner; (4) by Louis D. Krasner, Inc. (Krasner) for $809.50, by virtue of a judgment against Poskin, docketed in the Office of the County Clerk of Queens County on September 30, 1968; (5) by Consolidated Edison Company (Consolidated) for $736.74 for electric current furnished; (6) by New York Telephone Company for an unspecified amount for telephone service; (7) by the State of New York for $910.72 for unpaid franchise taxes by virtue of a warrant (which has the force and effect of a judgment) docketed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Kings on November 27, 1968; (8) by Burns Bros. Preferred, Inc. for $5,229.36 by virtue of a judgment docketed in the Office of the Clerk of Queens County on June 4, 1969.
Before discussing the individual claims and the referee's findings relative to each, an analysis of the principles of law applicable to the issues seems desirable. Such an analysis necessarily starts with the basic premise that surplus money realized upon a sale in foreclosure is not a general asset of the owner of the equity of redemption, for it stands 'in the place of the land for all purposes of distribution among persons having vested interests or liens upon the land' (15 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 92.425; also see, Albro v. Blume, 5 A.D. 309, 310--311, 39 N.Y.S. 215, 216). Put another way, surplus money takes the place of the equity of redemption. (Davison v. MacDonald, 124 Misc. 726, 728, 209 N.Y.S. 145, 147, affd. 216 A.D. 759, 214 N.Y.S. 825.) It thus follows that only one who had a vested estate or interest in the land sold under foreclosure which was cut off by the foreclosure sale is entitled to share in the surplus money. (15 Carmody-Wait 2d Op. cit., §§ 92:426, 92:427; Albro v. Blume, Supra, 5 App.Div.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 92
 v. 
 v. 
 v.