You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE JOINDER OF THE ESTATE INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court properly held that the estate was a necessary party in this foreclosure action, but failing the include the estate did no warrant dismissal of the complaint. Rather, the court should directed that the estate be joined as a party:

Supreme Court did not err in finding that the estate was a necessary defendant. “Pursuant to RPAPL 1311(1), ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, ‘[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the courtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein'” … . Particularly where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, and alleges a default in payment subsequent to the death of the deceased mortgagor, the estate of the mortgagor is a necessary party to the foreclosure action … . However, dismissal of the complaint was not the proper remedy; rather, the proper remedy was to direct the joinder of the estate as a defendant (see CPLR 1001[b] …). BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 02780, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER NEW YORK OR YEMEN WAS THE CHILDREN’S HOME STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have found New York did not have jurisdiction over this custody dispute without holding a hearing pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The issue is whether New York or Yemen was the children’s home state:

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70, “[w]here a minor child is residing within this state, either parent may apply to the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus to have such minor child brought before such court; and on the return thereof, the court, on due consideration, may award . . . custody of such child to either parent.” Here, since the children reside outside of this State, reference must necessarily be made to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A; hereinafter UCCJEA), which provides, inter alia, that “a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (a) this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][a] …). The UCCJEA defines “home state” as “the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]).

Here, the Family Court was required to hold a hearing as to the issue of whether New York or Yemen was the children’s home state, as there are disputed issues of fact regarding the circumstances under which the parties moved with the children from New York to Yemen … . Matter of Kassim v Al-Maliki, 2021 NY Slip Op 02800, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action, the defendants properly raised plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in opposition to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed … to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained two additional pages, the first entitled “Allonge to Note” and the second entitled “Note Allonge.” However, as the defendants correctly contend, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to indicate that the purported allonges were so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). …

… [S]ince the proper service of a RPAPL 1304 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, the defendants could properly raise this defense for the first time in their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the burden of establishing prima facie compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 was with the plaintiff … . …

… [I]n order to establish its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff submitted two affidavits from its “authorized signer,” Tracy A. Duck. However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, neither affidavit was sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Among other things, Duck did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity that purportedly sent the notices … . Moreover, the business records attached to Duck’s second affidavit were insufficient to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . LNV Corp. v Almberg, 2021 NY Slip Op 02791, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, , , ,

A TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS AN IN REM ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY DESPITE THE DEATH OF THE OWNER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tax foreclosure proceeding was not a nullity and did not violate due process. The foreclosed restaurant belonged to plaintiff’s husband, who died in 2006. The treasurer of Ontario County followed all the proper procedures for notification of the tax foreclosure proceedings. Tax foreclosure is an in rem action to which there are no parties. So the argument that the action could not be brought against the deceased owner of the restaurant was rejected:

… [B]y statute, mortgagors are necessary party defendants to mortgage foreclosure actions (see RPAPL 1311 [1]). In contrast, a petition in a tax foreclosure proceeding relates only to the property and not any particular person (see RPTL 1123 [2] [a]). The distinction between in rem tax foreclosure proceedings and mortgage foreclosure actions with respect to the “parties” is critical. While an action or proceeding cannot be commenced against a dead person who, by necessity, is a named party to the action … , a tax foreclosure proceeding is not commenced against any person; it is commenced against the property itself. The owners are not necessary “parties” to the tax foreclosure proceeding; they are only “[p]arties entitled to notice” of the proceeding (RPTL 1125 [1] [a]; see RPTL 1123 [1], [2] [a]; cf. RPAPL 1131). As a result, the tax foreclosure proceeding was properly commenced even though decedent had died … , and there was no need to substitute someone for the dead owner (see CPLR 1015). Hetelekides v County of Ontario, 2021 NY Slip Op 02697, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

, , ,

NON-OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO VACATE AN ERIE COUNTY TAX FORECLOSURE SALE; THE RIGHT TO PAY THE DELINQUENT TAXES HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the tax foreclosure sale of property owned by Black Rock to appellant should not have been vacated.  Respondent, Fedder, moved to vacate the sale. After County Court granted Fedder’s motion, the delinquent taxes were paid, the County issued a certificate of redemption to Black Rock, which then sold the property to Fedder:

… [T]his is not a mortgage foreclosure action, where the “equity of redemption” permits property owners “to redeem their property by tendering the full sum” owed before a valid sale is effectuated … . Here, instead, the right to pay the delinquent taxes by virtue of the equity of redemption was extinguished several months prior to Fedder’s motion by order to show cause, according to the ECTA [Erie County Tax Act], the public notice of foreclosure, and the terms of the judgment of foreclosure (see ECTA §§ 11-10.0, 11-12.0; see also RPTL art 11 … ). … [T]he purported redemption, the issuance of the certificate of redemption, and the purported sale and transfer of title from Black Rock to Fedder are nullities … . …

Fedder did not have standing to seek equitable relief in this case. Pursuant to ECTA § 7-10.0, the court could not set aside the sale to appellant “except upon a proceeding brought therefor by the owner of such real property within three months from the date of such sale.” Here, no such proceeding was brought. Instead, Fedder, a nonowner, filed a motion by order to show cause in this foreclosure action, and Black Rock, the owner, was not a party to the motion. In light of the ” ‘clear legislative intent’ ” of section 7-10.0 …, Fedder did not have standing to seek rescission of the sale.  Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens, 2021 NY Slip Op 02681, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT TIMELY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; THEREFORE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WAS NEVER COMPLETE AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY; SUPREME COURT CAN CURE THE NONJURISDICTIONAL DEFECT BY ORDERING DEFENDANT TO BE SERVED AND THE DEFENDANT MAY THEN INTERPOSE AN ANSWER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment was a nullity because the process server did not timely file the affidavit of service. The defect is not jurisdictional and can be cured. But the default judgment cannot be reinstated retroactively. Once properly served the defendant may submit an answer:

… [P]laintiff’s process server effectuated service by delivery and mail (see CPLR 308 [2]) on November 17, 2017. Plaintiff’s proof of service, however, was not filed with the clerk of the court until December 11, 2017, more than 20 days after the delivery and mailing. Accordingly, the filing was untimely and, as such, service of process was never completed (see CPLR 308 [2] …).

… [F]ailure to timely file proof of service is only a procedural irregularity, as opposed to a jurisdictional defect, and a court may, sua sponte, issue an order curing said irregularity (see CPLR 2001, 2004 … ). “A court may not, however, make that relief retroactive to a defendant’s prejudice by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the order, nor may a court give effect to a default judgment that, prior to the curing of the irregularity, was a nullity requiring vacatur” … . Here, no such curative order was ever sought from or issued by Supreme Court and, therefore, defendant’s time to answer never began to run such that the resulting default judgment was a nullity requiring vacatur … . Miller Greenberg Mgt. Group, LLC v Couture, 2021 NY Slip Op 02566, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

, ,

THE ACTION CONTESTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS OF A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH OWNS RECREATIONAL LAND AND COLLECTS DUES FROM LOT OWNERS MUST BE BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NOT AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE ACTION IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the amendment to the by-laws defendant not-for-profit corporation which owns land underneath a man-made lake must be contested in an Article 78 action, not a declaratory judgment action. Therefore the four-month Article 78 statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred. The underlying dispute involved the assessment of annual dues for lots which had been exempt from dues. Plaintiffs are the owners of those lots:

Supreme Court concluded that the action being challenged was a legislative act, which cannot be challenged in a CPLR article 78 proceeding but must be maintained in a declaratory judgment action. However, the cases addressing legislative acts deal with challenges to “governmental activity,” rather than the activity of nonpublic corporations … . This is an important distinction as the rule prohibiting the use of CPLR article 78 proceedings to challenge acts of legislative bodies “is derived from the separation-of-powers doctrine,” and so “has no application to the quasi-legislative acts of administrative agencies” … . Similarly, it does not apply to the actions or decisions of nonpublic corporations. * * *

Whether defendant’s alleged interest in plaintiffs’ property is based on the imposition of restrictive covenants or the possibility of a lien if plaintiffs fail to pay dues on multiple lots, any such alleged interest would be based on the amended bylaws. Accordingly, though all of plaintiffs’ causes of action are couched in declaratory judgment language, they can be distilled to challenges to defendant’s enactment of the amended bylaws that could have been raised in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and are therefore subject to a four-month statute of limitations … . Indeed, other courts have held that a challenge to a corporation’s amendment of its bylaws must be raised via a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced within four months of such amendment … . Doyle v Goodnow Flow Assn., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02580, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION MET THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 308 (4); THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. The process server for the bank in this foreclosure action satisfied the due diligence requirement for service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4):

There were four attempts to serve the defendants at their residence at times when they could reasonably have been expected to be found there, including attempts on a late weekday evening, an early weekday morning, a weekend evening, and a weekday afternoon … . As the plaintiff established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendants, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them … and decided the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the merits instead of, in effect, denying it as academic. Wilmington Trust Co. v Gewirtz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02562, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAIVED DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS DISPOSITIVE AND NEVER LITIGATED; THE BANK’S FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE BANK’S ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank’s failure to move for a default judgment within one year required dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). The court noted that Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held defendant waived dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) because the issue had never been litigated:

Although the Supreme Court keenly observed that the defendants had filed a notice of appearance in the first action in October 2014, it should not have, sua sponte, determined that such notice of appearance constituted a waiver of their right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), as the parties never litigated the issue of waiver. Since that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint had “‘dispositive import'” … , the court should have notified the parties of the waiver issue and afforded them an opportunity to be heard prior to determining the cross motion on a ground neither side argued. …

“The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . “‘Failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment may be excused, however, upon a showing of sufficient cause,’ which requires the plaintiff to ‘demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action'” … . Wells Fargo Bank v Aucapina, 2021 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION A DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A DISMISSAL ON THE MERITS RE: RES JUDICATA; A SECOND DISCONTINUANCE WHICH IS NOT ON NOTICE IS NOT A DISCONTINUANCE WITH PREJUDICE RE: CPLR 3217 (C) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a foreclosure action dismissed for lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits. The court further noted that a second discontinuance is not with prejudice, i.e., on the merits, unless it is on notice:

“‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of all other claims arising out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even if based upon a different theory involving materially different elements of proof'” … . However, “a dismissal premised on lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes” … .. Here, the instant action was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the 2014 action was dismissed for, inter alia, lack of standing, and that does not qualify as a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes … .

CPLR 3217(c) provides that “[u]nless otherwise stated in the notice, stipulation or order of discontinuance, the discontinuance is without prejudice, except that a discontinuance by means of notice operates as an adjudication on the merits if the party has once before discontinued by any method an action based on or including the same cause of action.” The dismissal of the second action after a previous discontinuance only operates as an adjudication on the merits if that second discontinuance is achieved by means of notice … . Here, after the 2010 action was discontinued by means of notice, the 2014 action was dismissed after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. Since the 2014 action was not discontinued by means of notice, CPLR 3217(c) is inapplicable to this instant action. US Bank Trust, N.A. v Loring, 2021 NY Slip Op 02559, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy