In this action, the Defendant TODD BLUM, acting pro se, sought and obtained an Order To Show Cause which was granted by this Court on April 7, 2010. The stated purpose of the Order To Show Cause was to enjoin certain ejectment proceedings.

Plaintiff commenced this action claiming foreclosure of a first mortgage encumbering premises known as 101 Lincoln Road, Medford, Town of Brookhaven, New York resulting from a default occurring on or about April 1, 2006. A Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale was granted in this action, upon the default of the Defendants, on August 7, 2007 fixing the debt due Plaintiff at $ 320,160.61 exclusive of costs, attorney's fees, statutory interest and post-judgment advances. Following a series of four serial bankruptcy petitions (two separate Chapter 13 petitions filed by each Defendant) and an Order To Show Cause brought by Defendant DEBORAH A. BLUM, a public auction sale of the premises was conducted on December 2, 2009 by the Referee. The [*2]premises were struck down to Plaintiff who was the sole bidder and title to the premises devolved unto Plaintiff pursuant to a Referee's Deed In Foreclosure. At the time of sale, the debt due and owing to Plaintiff stood at $ 420,364.44. Defendants were then duly served with copies of the Referee's Deed and the requisite Notice To Quit Possession. By reason of their failure to deliver up possession, Plaintiff applied to this Court for and obtained a Writ of Assistance, which was issued by this Court on February 23, 2010.

In the present application, which is dated April 7, 2010, Defendant TODD BLUM requests an indeterminate stay of the ejectment proceedings, asserting verbatim that "I was in negotiation with bank rep. for "Cash for Keys" Tony Bykov manager for Ocwen and Edward Burke. I also am to sick to move in 72 hrs with my probifes and neropathy aiments [sic] I'm loosing my right foot!!"

In response, Plaintiff has submitted voluminous opposing papers wherein counsel vigorously asserts that the application should be denied on a multitude of grounds. First, counsel avers that Defendant failed to serve the moving papers, having only delivered the bare Order. Second, counsel asserts that both Defendants have willfully and in bad faith delayed this foreclosure action on many occasions, both in this Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court, to the great detriment of Plaintiff. Third, counsel asserts that any relief sought by Defendants cannot lie inasmuch as any equity of redemption has been extinguished by virtue of the foreclosure sale and its attendant devolution of title.

It has long been the law in New York that the consummation of a public auction of a property in foreclosure extinguishes all equity of redemption, Nutt v. Cuming 155 NY 309 [1898]. It follows, then, that there can be no redemption of property after such a foreclosure sale has been concluded, Deutsche Bank Co. Of Cal. v. DePalo 38 AD3d 490 [2nd Dept. 2007].

Since judicial sympathy is not a recognized defense to an action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage, Graf v. Hope Building Corporation 253 NY 1 [1930], the Court presumes that Defendant is appealing to the equity jurisdiction of this Court. This would be appropriate since an action to foreclose a mortgage is a suit in equity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investing Co. 274 NY 215 [1937]. In a proceeding in equity, the Supreme Court is invested with the authority to do that which ought to be done, that which is fair under the circumstances of each case.

The Court is constrained to note that Defendant does not raise any claim of a lack of service of the initial summons nor any mesne process and hence, the provisions of CPLR 317 and CPLR 5015 are inapplicable herein. Indeed, it is clear to this Court, especially after a painstaking examination of the history of proceedings under this index number (all of which have been before the undersigned Justice), that both Defendants were fully aware of the pendency of this action and that each of them affirmatively undertook acts that were calculated to delay, impede and impair Plaintiff in the exercise of its rights under the Note, Mortgage and Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale. In this endeavor, Defendants have been unfailingly successful. Indeed, the record is replete with ample proof that Defendants have lived in the home "rent free" so to speak, for a period in excess of four years and further, that Plaintiff has been forced to bear the expense of both casualty insurance to protect its interest in the premises as well as the [*3]property taxes levied thereon by the Town of Brookhaven.

It follows, then, that Defendants have "unclean hands" and hence equity should not rightly intervene on their behalf, York v. Searles 97 AD 331 [2nd Dept. 1904], aff'd 189 NY 573 [1907].

Inasmuch as Defendant has advanced no legally or factually efficacious reason for any stay of proceedings, this application must be denied in its entirety.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the application of the Defendant TODD BLUM shall be and the same is hereby denied in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the stay of proceedings heretofore ordered herein shall be and the same is hereby vacated, dissolved and set aside and is of no further force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff is granted leave to continue prosecution of its ejectment proceeding herein.

This constitutes the decision, judgment and order of the Court.

Dated: June 10, 2010

Riverhead, New York

_____________________________

Hon. Jeffrey Arlen Spinner

J.S.C.