DECISION AND ORDER In July of 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants based upon Defendants’ failure to make timely payments under the terms of a promissory note which was secured by a lien on a manufactured home. This Court previously granted a money judgment against Defendants and issued an Order of Seizure pursuant to, among other provisions, Article 9 of the Lien Law. After obtaining the Order of Seizure, Plaintiff forwarded to Defendants a hardship declaration form, purportedly pursuant to the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (hereinafter “CEEFPA”). When the Clinton County Sheriff served the Order of Seizure on Defendants, Defendants gave the Sheriff a completed hardship declaration form dated August 25, 2021. By Notice of Motion dated September 10, 2021, Plaintiff seeks an order determining the validity of Defendants’ hardship claim pursuant to CEEFPA and Part C, Subpart A of part BB of Chapter 56 of the laws of 2021. In support of the motion, Plaintiff submits an affidavit of Attorney Amanda C. Shaw, Esq., sworn September 10, 2021; an affidavit of Chris Moore, Supervisor, Triad Financial Services Inc., servicing agent for Plaintiff, dated sworn November 11, 2021; and correspondence of counsel dated December 2, 2021. To date, Defendants have not submitted a written response to Plaintiff’s motion. For the reasons to follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. The Court holds that CEEFPA does not apply to chattel, such as a manufactured home. See CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417. The definitions contained in the various Parts and Subparts of the CEEFPA legislation permit no interpretation other than that the legislation was intended to apply to commercial and residential real property. See e.g., CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part B, Subpart A, §1 (“‘Eviction proceeding’ means a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property under article seven of the real property actions and proceedings law relating to a commercial unit or any other judicial or administrative proceeding to recover possession of real property relating to a commercial unit.”); CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part B, Subpart B, §1 (“This section shall apply to any action to foreclose a mortgage relating to commercial real property….”); CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part B, Subpart C, §1 (“This act shall apply to any action to foreclose on delinquent taxes or sell a tax lien relating to a commercial real property….”); CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part B, Subpart D, §1 (“This act shall apply to an owner of commercial real property, provided the owner or mortgagor of such property owns ten or fewer commercial units….”); CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part C, Subpart A, §1 (“‘Eviction proceeding’ means a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property under article seven of the real property actions and proceedings law relating to a residential dwelling unit or any other judicial or administrative proceeding to recover possession of real property relating to a residential dwelling unit.”); CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part C, Subpart B, §1 (“This section shall apply to any action to foreclose a mortgage relating to residential real property….”); CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part C, Subpart C, §1 (“This act shall apply to any action to foreclose delinquent taxes or sell a tax lien relating to residential real property….”); CEEFPA, L 2020, ch 381, as amended by L 2021, ch 417, Part C, Subpart D, §1 (“This act shall apply to an owner of residential real property, provided the owner or mortgagor…owns ten or fewer dwelling units….”) Because CEEFPA does not apply to chattel, the hardship declaration has no bearing on the proceedings. Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that the hardship declaration form was provided to Defendants “in an abundance of caution….” and stated that Plaintiff has no basis to assert that a manufactured home was subject to the CEEFPA. Based upon the foregoing, the Court must deny the motion because it seeks relief which has no relevance or meaning in the context of these proceedings. The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s alternative request contained in its December 2, 2021 correspondence. Plaintiff requests that, in the event the Court determines the CEEFPA has no applicability to the instant matter, the Court direct the Clinton County Sheriff’s Department to proceed with enforcement of the Court’s Order of Seizure dated April 26, 2021. The Court declines to do so because an order directing the Sheriff’s Department to follow the Order of Seizure would be superfluous. If, as a result of Plaintiff’s unnecessary service of the hardship form upon Defendants and Defendants subsequent completion of the form (or for any other reason), the Sheriff’s office fails to perform its lawful duty, Plaintiff is free to commence the appropriate action against the Sheriff’s office to compel performance. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff’s Motion dated September 10, 2021 is DENIED. Signed and Dated: December 10, 2021
