Provides for the appointment of foreclosure receivers and managing agents in cities having a population of one million or more.
Summary
This bill amends section 1325 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to address the appointment of receivers in mortgage foreclosure actions. It preserves existing law that, when a mortgage expressly allows a receiver to be appointed without notice, a motion for that appointment does not require notice. The bill then adds a new rule applicable only in cities with a population of one million or more, which in practice means New York City.
Under the new city-specific provision, the local agency responsible for enforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing the operation, repair, or maintenance of residential real property may submit to the chief administrative judge a list of qualified persons to serve as receivers or managing agents. If such a list is submitted, the court may appoint only a receiver whose name appears on the list, and that receiver may appoint only a managing agent who also appears on the list. The bill takes effect immediately.
Impact
The bill would create a new, geographically limited appointment process for foreclosure receivers and managing agents in New York City, while leaving the general statewide foreclosure receiver rule intact. It would give a designated city agency a gatekeeping role in identifying qualified receivers and managing agents, and would constrain judicial appointments to those approved names. This would affect foreclosure practice, residential property management, lenders, courts, and individuals or firms seeking appointment as receivers or managing agents in one-million-plus population cities.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears aimed at improving oversight and qualification standards for receivers and managing agents in foreclosure cases, particularly in dense urban housing markets. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers. The bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for tighter control over who can manage distressed residential properties in New York City.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s city-specific restriction, which could be viewed as either a necessary safeguard for residential tenants and property conditions or as an added limitation on court discretion and the pool of eligible receivers. Another possible issue is the role given to the local enforcement agency in effectively screening appointees, which may raise concerns about administrative burden, transparency, or favoritism. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the available record.
The Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act and trustees for commercial buildings during foreclosures; to provide for a legislative management study; and to provide for application.