Notice to Quit with a copy of the Referee's Deed was served on the respondent.
The respondent is the sole tenant under a Section 8 lease that is for a term of one year from
September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008. This was the second lease executed by the respondent for
these premises. The previous lease was from November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007. (It appears
that the first lease was renegotiated before the expiration of the term, lowering the monthly
payment for the respondent but also making her responsible for the payment of [*2]utilities at the premises.) The respondent asserts that she was the
sole tenant of the premises and therefore she should have been named a party to any foreclosure
proceedings.
The Court finds that the respondent was properly served with the Ten Day Notice to Quit
with a copy of the Referee's Deed, in that a Mrs. Aiken (who refused to give her first name) was
served by the process server. The docket reflects that Mrs. Aiken is an a/k/a/ for April Keys and
the caption was amended to reflect that fact. Accordingly, the respondent was properly served
with all papers in regard to the holdover proceeding.
The respondent was not properly named as a party in the foreclosure proceedings though.
"In order to cut off the interest of an occupant of the premises, the occupant must be
named as a party in the foreclosure proceedings." Mers, Inc. v. Bernard, 18
Misc 3d 1134(A) [SCt, Nassau County 2007] (citing Douglas v. Kohart, 196
App Div 84 [2d Dept 1921]; and Krotchka v. Green, 121 Misc 2d 471 [Yonkers
City Ct, 1983]). The respondent was not named in the foreclosure proceedings and therefore her
rights were "not affected by the judgment of foreclosure and sale." Id. (Citing
Polish National Alliance of Brooklyn, U.S.A. v. White Eagle Hall Co.,