no longer be property of the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(h). However, timeliness for assumption under Section 365(p) is unclear because Section 362(h) refers to Section 521(a)(2), which is addressed not to leased property, but to reaffirmation of debts associated with property of the estate or redemption of property of the estate against which there is a secured claim. Having discussed the mechanics and effects of reaffirmation agreements and lease assumption agreements, the Court now turns to a comparison of the two. Reaffirmation Agreements vs. Lease Assumptions This Court has recently addressed reopening a closed case solely to allow the filing of a reaffirmation agreement, In re Polynar Mardy & Marie D. Joseph, No. 10-73819, 2011 WL 917545 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2011) (<HOLDING>), and reopening a closed case to allow the
holding that a bankruptcy appellate panel abuses its discretion by preventing a bankruptcy trustee from reopening a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding when reopening the case would potentially benefit creditors holding that the question of whether an interest is a claim for bankruptcy purposes is to be resolved by reference to the text history and purpose of the bankruptcy code holding that a reaffirmation agreement is enforceable as having been made predischarge where the parties agree to the terms of the proposed reaffirmation predischarge but the debtors do not sign a writing embodying the terms of their agreement until after entry of the discharge order holding that reopening closed case was necessary for bankruptcy court jurisdiction holding that reopening a closed case to file a reaffirmation agreement is not permitted by the bankruptcy code