Gletzer v. Harris, 12 N.Y.3d 467 (2009)
r
r
A renewal judgment lien under CPLR 5014 becomes effective when granted by the court, and does not automatically relate back to the expiration date of the original lien, especially when intervening mortgagees have acquired rights in the property.
r
r
Summary
r
Gletzer obtained a judgment against Harris in 1991, creating a lien on Harris’s condo. Near the lien’s expiration in 2001, Gletzer sought a renewal judgment under CPLR 5014. During the ensuing delay, two mortgage companies, Greenpoint and Copplestone, issued mortgages to Harris. When the renewal was granted in 2005, it was made retroactive to the original lien’s expiration. Greenpoint and Copplestone challenged the retroactivity, arguing their mortgages had priority. The Court of Appeals held that the renewal lien was effective only from the date it was granted, thus the mortgages had priority because the lien was not active when they were issued. The Court emphasized the importance of a clear public record for real property interests and that CPLR 5014 does not mandate automatic retroactivity, particularly when it prejudices the rights of intervening parties.
r
r
Facts
r
r
In 1991, Gletzer obtained a default judgment against Harris for approximately $470,000, which was docketed on October 23, 1991, creating a lien on Harris’s Manhattan condominium.r
On October 22, 2001, Gletzer commenced a CPLR 5014 action to renew the lien, one day before the original 10-year lien was to expire.r
During the period after the original lien expired but before the renewal judgment was granted, Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and Copplestone Finance Company Limited loaned Harris money, securing the loans with mortgages on the condominium, recorded in February 2003 and July 2003, respectively.r
Gletzer’s renewal judgment was granted in February 2005, with the court ordering that it apply nunc pro tunc to October 23, 2001.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
Greenpoint and Copplestone initiated a CPLR 5239 action seeking to vacate the nunc pro tunc effect of the renewal judgment or, alternatively, a determination that their liens had priority over Gletzer’s lien.r
Supreme Court dismissed the mortgage companies’ action, holding that Gletzer’s lien retained its superiority because the renewal action was timely commenced.r
The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Gletzer’s renewal lien became effective when granted by the Supreme Court, not when the original lien expired, and thus, the mortgagees’ liens maintained priority.r
The Court of Appeals granted Gletzer leave to appeal.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether a renewal judgment lien secured pursuant to CPLR 5014 for a second 10-year period can take effect nunc pro tunc on the expiration date of the original lien, cutting off the property interests of intervening mortgagees.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
No, because CPLR 5014 does not provide for a renewal judgment to have retroactive effect to the original lien’s expiration date and because nunc pro tunc treatment is inappropriate where additional lenders relying on the public record acquired rights in the property. The renewal lien becomes effective when granted by the Supreme Court.r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The Court of Appeals held that CPLR 5014 allows a judgment creditor to apply for renewal of a judgment lien during the year before the original lien expires, but the statute does not expressly mandate nunc pro tunc treatment when the order is granted after the original lien has expired. The Court emphasized that the language of the statute is prospective (