Order | Filed: April 24, 2026
| Entered: April 24, 2026
Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Johnson et al
Real Property: Foreclosure | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Show Cause
ORDER denying 180 Motion for Order to Show Cause. The plaintiff filed this foreclosure action on November 1, 2013, to recover the unpaid balance of two commercial construction loans, which were secured by 356 East 31st Street, Brooklyn, NY 11226, a six-unit residential rental property in Brooklyn, New York. (ECF No. 1.) After multiple delays, the Court entered default judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of the plaintiff, and the auction and sale took place on December 21, 2023. (ECF Nos. 150, 160.) The plaintiff purchased the property and assigned it to its wholly-owned subsidiary. (ECF No. 160.) Nevertheless, the occupants remained in the property, so the Court granted the plaintiffs motion for a writ of assistance directing the U.S. Marshals or New York City Sherriff's Office to deliver vacant possession of the entire property on December 29, 2025. (ECF No. 174.)
Now, the tenants of Apartment 2F seek to stay execution of the writ of assistance. (ECF No. 180.) They state that they leased the apartment on October 23, 2024 from the defendant Linford Johnson, and did not receive notice of their pending eviction until April 22, 2026. (ECF No. 180-2 ¶¶ 5, 10.) They argue that they are protected against eviction under N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 9 § 2524. (ECF No. 180-4 ¶ 1621.)
The tenants' argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, the tenants repeatedly received notice — over the course of over a year — of the foreclosure proceedings and pending eviction. The plaintiff has filed notice of service to the occupants of Apartment 2F of several critical updates in this case, including notice of the April 28, 2025 hearing for the order to show cause on the writ of assistance, (ECF No. 163), and Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione's December 9, 2025 report recommending the Court issue the writ of assistance, (ECF No. 173). In short, the tenants had multiple opportunities to make the arguments that they raise here, which they repeatedly declined.
Second, the tenants are not protected by Section 2524, because they do not have a valid lease. "[T]he essential concept of lease requires a transfer of some right to use. Implicitly, the lessor must possess some right that the lessor has authority to transfer." In re CNB Int'l, Inc., 307 B.R. 363, 369 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2004). When the tenants leased the apartment on October 23, 2024, Linford Johnson had not owned the property for over eight months. (ECF No. 161-5 at 4.) Since Johnson lacked a legal interest to transfer, the tenants simply do not have an interest in the property for Section 2524 to protect.
For these reasons, the tenants' motion for an order to show cause is denied. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 4/24/2026. (CNG)