What did the court decide in plain terms?

The court decided Evelyn could be removed from the lawsuit because he had sold his interest in the property and the bank waived any claim for money owed from him, so the foreclosure could proceed without him.

Who is affected by this decision?

Evelyn is affected because he was dropped as a defendant; the bank and the current property owner are affected because the foreclosure and sale were allowed to proceed.

Does this mean Evelyn owes nothing?

Not necessarily about other obligations, but in this foreclosure the bank waived seeking a deficiency against him, so the foreclosure will not result in a money judgment against Evelyn for any shortfall.

Can this ruling be appealed further?

Yes, the decision could potentially be reviewed by a higher court, but the Appellate Division affirmed the foreclosure order and did not indicate any further relief for Evelyn.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. New York City Tr. Adjudication Bur.

Docket 2023-09742

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02432
Docket: 2023-09742

Appeal from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in a mortgage foreclosure action

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The dispute concerned whether John Evelyn, who conveyed his interest in the mortgaged Brooklyn property in 2015, remained a necessary defendant in a 2008 mortgage foreclosure. The court held that because Evelyn had made an absolute conveyance and the plaintiff waived any deficiency claim against him, he was no longer a necessary party and could be dropped from the caption under CPLR 1003. The foreclosure and sale order was therefore affirmed as to Evelyn.

Issues Decided

Whether a mortgagor who conveyed all interest in the property remains a necessary party to a foreclosure action when no deficiency judgment is sought against them
Whether the court properly granted a motion under CPLR 1003 to drop a named defendant from the caption

Court's Reasoning

Under CPLR 1003, parties may be dropped at any stage if just. New York law holds that a mortgagor who has made an absolute conveyance of all interest in the mortgaged premises is not a necessary party to a foreclosure action unless a deficiency judgment is sought. Here the bank proved Evelyn had conveyed his interest and also waived any right to a deficiency judgment against him, so he was no longer a necessary party. Because those conditions were met, the court properly dropped Evelyn and ordered the sale, and the appellate court affirmed.

Authorities Cited

CPLR 1003
Citimortgage, Inc. v Warsi212 AD3d 592
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v Foltishen Institute199 AD3d 1011

Parties

Respondent: U.S. Bank, National Association
Nonparty-Appellant: John Evelyn
Defendant: New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau
Plaintiff: LaSalle Bank, N.A. (predecessor in interest)
Judge: Lawrence Knipel
Judge: Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Key Dates

Deed conveying property: 2015-03-16
Original foreclosure commencement: 2008-03-01
Order denying cross-motion (in effect) / substitution and order of reference: 2022-10-28
Order dropping Evelyn and amending caption: 2022-11-04
Order and judgment of foreclosure and sale: 2023-07-26
Appellate decision date: 2026-04-22

What You Should Do Next

1
For Evelyn: consult counsel
Speak with an attorney about any remaining exposure or remedies, and whether to seek leave to appeal or other post-judgment relief if appropriate.
2
For the bank: proceed with sale
Continue with the foreclosure sale process as directed by the judgment of foreclosure and sale.
3
For the purchaser or property holder: monitor sale and title
Ensure the sale is completed and confirm title documentation reflects the foreclosure outcome and the prior conveyance by Evelyn.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide in plain terms?: The court decided Evelyn could be removed from the lawsuit because he had sold his interest in the property and the bank waived any claim for money owed from him, so the foreclosure could proceed without him.
Who is affected by this decision?: Evelyn is affected because he was dropped as a defendant; the bank and the current property owner are affected because the foreclosure and sale were allowed to proceed.
Does this mean Evelyn owes nothing?: Not necessarily about other obligations, but in this foreclosure the bank waived seeking a deficiency against him, so the foreclosure will not result in a money judgment against Evelyn for any shortfall.
Can this ruling be appealed further?: Yes, the decision could potentially be reviewed by a higher court, but the Appellate Division affirmed the foreclosure order and did not indicate any further relief for Evelyn.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

U.S. Bank, N.A. v New York City Tr. Adjudication Bur. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02432

U.S. Bank, N.A. v New York City Tr. Adjudication Bur.

2026 NY Slip Op 02432

April 22, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

U.S. Bank, National Association, etc., respondent,

New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, et al., defendants; John Evelyn, nonparty-appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 22, 2026

2023-09742, (Index No. 7490/08)

Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Barry E. Warhit

Lourdes M. Ventura, JJ.

Menashe & Associates, LLP, Montebello, NY (Chezki Menashe of counsel), for nonparty-appellant.

McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, New York, NY (Adam Weiss of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, John Evelyn appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated July 26, 2023. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated October 28, 2022, inter alia, in effect, denying the cross-motion of John Evelyn pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him as abandoned, and upon an order of the same court dated November 4, 2022, granting that branch of the motion of the plaintiff's predecessor in interest which was pursuant to CPLR 1003 to "drop" John Evelyn as a named defendant and to amend the caption accordingly, directed the sale of the subject property.

ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In 2006, John Evelyn executed a note that was secured by a mortgage on certain residential property located in Brooklyn. Evelyn allegedly defaulted on his obligations under the note and mortgage, and in March 2008, LaSalle Bank, N.A. (hereinafter LaSalle), commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage against Evelyn, among others. By deed dated March 16, 2015, Evelyn transferred his interest in the property to nonparty 9228 Management, LLC.

In 2022, LaSalle moved, inter alia, to substitute U.S. Bank, National Association (hereinafter U.S. Bank), as the plaintiff, and for an order of reference. Evelyn cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him as abandoned. LaSalle then moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 1003 to "drop" Evelyn as a named defendant on the ground that he was no longer a necessary party, and to amend the caption accordingly. LaSalle waived the right to seek a deficiency judgment against Evelyn. Evelyn opposed the motion.

In an order dated October 28, 2022, the Supreme Court granted LaSalle's motion, inter alia, to substitute U.S. Bank as the plaintiff and for an order of reference, and, in effect, denied Evelyn's cross-motion. In an order dated November 4, 2022, the court granted that branch of
LaSalle's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1003 to "drop" Evelyn as a named defendant and to amend the caption accordingly. Subsequently, U.S. Bank moved, among other things, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 26, 2023, the court granted U.S. Bank's motion and, inter alia, directed the sale of the property. Evelyn appeals.

Pursuant to CPLR 1003, "[p]arties may be dropped by the court, on motion of any party or on its own initiative, at any stage of the action and upon such terms as may be just." A mortgagor who has made an absolute conveyance of all his or her interest in the mortgaged premises is not a necessary party to a foreclosure action unless a deficiency judgment is sought (
see

Citimortgage, Inc. v Warsi
, 212 AD3d 592, 594;
Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Foltishen Inst.
, 199 AD3d 1011, 1012;
PNC Bank, N.A. v Lefkowitz
, 185 AD3d 1069, 1070). Here, in support of its motion, LaSalle established that Evelyn had conveyed his interest in the mortgaged property, and LaSalle waived the right to seek a deficiency judgment against Evelyn. Thus, Evelyn was no longer a necessary party to this foreclosure action, and the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of LaSalle's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1003 to "drop" Evelyn as a named defendant and to amend the caption accordingly (
see

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Foltishen Inst.
, 199 AD3d at 1012;
DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v 44 Brushy Neck, Ltd.
, 51 AD3d 857, 859).

The parties' remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination.

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph