Upon the following papers numbered 1 to10read on this motion by the plaintiff for an order confirming the report of the referee to compute and for judgment; Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1 - 4; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers; Answering papers5-8; Reply papers9- 10; Other; (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is,

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose an October 24, 2011 commercial mortgage given to the plaintiff by defendant, Wulforst Acquisition, LLC [hereinafter "Acquisition"]. The mortgage secured a consolidated, amended and restated the mortgage note of October 24, 2011 in the amount of $2,800,000.00 which the plaintiff advanced to defendant Acquisition. It encumbered vacant land that was intended to be developed with a residential subdivision contiguous to a golf course. By order and memo decision dated June 18, 2014, the plaintiff was awarded accelerated judgments on its complaint and other incidental relief including the appointment of a referee to compute amounts due under the mortgage and to ascertain whether the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel in accordance with the provisions of RPAPL § 1321. A separate order appointing, Daniel J. Murphy, Esq., as referee in which the scope of his reference was commensurate with that outlined in RPAPL § 1321, issued with the memo decision of June 18, 2014.

By the instant motion (#004), the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the report of referee Murphy and issuance and entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Partial opposition to the motion has been interposed by defendants Rego and Henlein who are subject to claims of a deficiency in the event the sale of the property does not fetch a price commensurate with or above that owing to the plaintiff under the terms of the judgment. While these defendants do not challenge the referee's calculation of amounts due under the terms of the mortgage loan documents, they challenge the referee's finding that the mortgaged premises, which consist of an undeveloped multi-acre parcel for which subdivision approval into a 30 lot residential development has issued, should be sold in one parcel. According to the defendants, separate sales of each lot will yield a higher price than would a single sale of the tract as one parcel. The plaintiff refutes the challenge in its reply papers and asks the court to grant its motion in its entirety.

Upon its review of the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the instant motion, the court grants the plaintiff's motion for confirmation of the report of the referee and its further request for the issuance and entry of a judgment of a foreclosure and sale. As the plaintiff points out in its reply papers, the subject mortgage encumbered a single tract of undeveloped land which the mortgagor purchased with the loan proceeds and the subdivision approval issued by the local zoning board is conditional. The fact that the single parcel is comprised of multiple tax lots is a matter of record neither requires nor warrants individual sales of each separate tax lot (see LBV Properties v Greenport Development Co., 188 AD2d 588, 591 NYS2d 70 [2d Dept 1992]). Morever, the defendants' estimation that individual sales will garner a higher aggregate purchase price is unaccompanied by any estimation of the price a single sale of the entire parcel may bring. The motion is thus granted and the court confirms the report of the referee to compute, including his finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel.

The proposed judgment attached to the moving papers, as modified by the court to reflect the terms of this order, has been marked signed.