Background
Eliahu Abukasis was a defendant and remains a cross-defendant in a commercial foreclosure action. The trial court approved the sale of the foreclosed property to 841 W. 40th St., LLC; sale proceeds paid City First Mortgage Corp.; and City First then voluntarily dismissed its foreclosure claim and released its lis pendens.
The sale order expressly reserved the trial court’s jurisdiction to enforce the sale terms and decide Hilary Kates’s crossclaim against Abukasis. Represented by counsel, Abukasis petitioned for prohibition or certiorari, contending that City First’s dismissal deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to continue those proceedings. The Third District denied the corrected petition on July 1, 2026. Thirty days later, Abukasis filed an “Emergency Motion to Re-Open Case,” which the court treated as a rehearing motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District denied rehearing. It held that its earlier denial of Abukasis’s corrected emergency petition was a merits ruling, not a consequence of a prior order barring Abukasis from making additional pro se filings related to the foreclosure case.
The court reaffirmed that the trial court plainly retained jurisdiction over claims for which it had expressly reserved jurisdiction, notwithstanding City First’s voluntary dismissal of its foreclosure claim. It also stated that no further rehearing motion from this rehearing order was authorized.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a foreclosure claim did not eliminate jurisdiction over expressly reserved matters, including enforcement of a sale order and a pending crossclaim.
- The court treated the motion to reopen as a motion for rehearing and denied it because the underlying jurisdictional challenge had already been rejected on the merits.
- The court cautioned that “emergency” filings must involve genuine emergencies and noted counsel’s failure to comply with the court’s emergency-treatment administrative order for later filings.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that dismissal of the principal foreclosure claim does not necessarily end all trial-court authority in the case. Express reservations of jurisdiction may preserve proceedings concerning sale enforcement and remaining claims.
It also underscores the procedural and credibility risks of labeling nonurgent appellate filings as emergencies.