Case Name: Henry A. Koelsch, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas D. Kendall and Others, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-04
Citations: 76 Misc. 367
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry A. Koelsch, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas D. Kendall and Others, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 367–369

Head Matter:
Henry A. Koelsch, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas D. Kendall and Others, Defendants.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,-
April, 1912.)
Judgment — rendition — at particular stages of the action—judgment ■ on report of referee — docketing — time'—; execution.'-
Where' a referee’s report of sale in foreclosure, sh.owing a deficiency, was filed in 1900, hut the judgment for deficiency was not docketed until 1909, and an order granting leave to issue an execution thereon was made in 1912, a motion to';compel the with drawal of publication of notice of sale under.said execution and to stay all proceedings relating thereto will be granted.
A judgment lien for deficiency arising on foreclosure attaches to defendant’s real estate for ten years only after the filing of the referee’s report of sale showing the amount of the deficiency.
Motion to enjoin plaintiff and the sheriff of New York county from selling real property under -execution issued on deficiency judgment. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Thomas F. Keogh, for motion.
Edward S. Clinch, opposed.

Opinion:
Bijur, J.
Motion to compel the withdrawal of the publication of notice of sale by the sheriff of certain lands, and to stay all proceedings relating thereto. Plaintiff, having "recovered a judgment of foreclosure against defendant and others, filed a judgment-roll December 20, 1899. The judgment provided for a sale of the premises by a referee, that the referee should specify the amount of the deficiency, if any, and that plaintiff should have execution therefor. The sale took place • Jánuary IT, 1900. The referee's report, showing a deficiency, was filed January 16, 1900; The judgment for the deficiency was docketed May 22, 1903. Plaintiff obtained an order granting. him leave to issue execution February 26, 1912. 'Section 1251 of the Code reads: " Except as otherwise specially provided by láw, a judgment,- . is a charge upon, for ten years after-filing the judgonent roll, and no longer, the real property, etc." The defendant claims that the lien upon his property.¡under this judgnient extended for .ten years from December 20, 1899, only, and had therefore expired before the'present order for «execution was obtained (apparently under section T3TT of-'the-Code)'. 'Plaintiff claims that sec- ' tion T25T is limited'by section T2J2 to -apply only to judgments wholly or' partly fór á sum of money,' and that a judgement, of.,foreclosure is npt such "a judgment. Defendant claims that a judgment for deficiency i§ such a judgment. In either event I do not understand on what theory the plaintiff claims his judgment for deficiency to he a lien for a period of ten years beginning at any date other than in 1900 at the time either of the filing of the judgment-roll or (by liberal interpretation of that term) at the time of the filing of the referee's report of the sale and his report of the amount of the deficiency. If section 1251 covers this judgment, then the' year 1900 would be the correct date from which to calculate the ten years-. If it does not cover this judgment there seems to be no provision — or at least plaintiff cites none — which makes his judgment a lien upon real estate. The point is made in plaintiff's brief that defendant
has no present interest- in or title to the property, and therefore shows no right to the relief here prayed for. But the moving papers present no facts upon which this claim is .based; there is no statement in them as to the present title .or interest of the defendant. The notice of sale relates to
" all the right, title and interest that defendant had on the 22d day of May, 1903, or at any time thereafter." As the' attempt to enforce this execution manifestly proceeds on the theory that the lien of the judgment still attaches, I find
that defendant's motion- must be granted.
Motion granted.