You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the foreclosure complaint, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to foreclose and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [S]ince the witness on the issue of standing proffered by the plaintiff at the trial testified, among other things, that the purported allonges that were with the original note were not stapled to the note, and further testified that he did not know when the allonges were executed or attached to the note, the plaintiff failed to establish its standing as the holder of the original note at the time of the commencement of the action. * * *

… [P]laintiff’s witness on the issue of notice did not have knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which, according to the plaintiff, sent the requisite 30-day and 90-day notices … . Moreover, the business records that were submitted in evidence failed to show that the requisite certified and first-class mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices or the default notices were actually made to the defendants or that the default notices were actually delivered to their notice address. Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and failed to show that the default notices were sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Onewest Bank FSB v Thomas, 2025 NY Slip Op 05692, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: If a foreclosure action goes to trial and standing is contested, the bank must prove it has standing to foreclose. In addition, the bank must prove compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. Here the failure of proof on those issues resulted in dismissal of the complaint.​

 

, ,

IT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; HOWEVER IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE MOTION TO TOLL THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the deadline for the foreclosure sale mandated by RPAPL 1351 was properly extended due to the COVID pandemic, but the accumulation of interest during the delay should have been tolled:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 to extend the time to conduct the foreclosure sale to the extent of extending the time to conduct the sale to 90 days from the date of the order … . The plaintiff demonstrated that “the delay [wa]s largely attributable to, among other things, . . . the COVID-19 pandemic” … . Further, the defendant failed to establish that the delay caused him any prejudice … .

“A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . Thus, “[i]n an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party” … . “Further, a tolling and cancellation of interest may also be warranted where there is an unexplained delay in prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … . “[A] plaintiff should not benefit financially, in the form of accrued interest, from an unexplained delay in the prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross-motion to toll the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan … . The plaintiff asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted its ability to proceed with the sale of the property … . However, the pandemic-related stays on foreclosure sales did not go into effect until after the expiration of the 90-day deadline to conduct the sale of the property … , and the plaintiff failed to adequately explain its failure to conduct the sale within that 90-day period … . Under the circumstances presented, the court should have granted the defendant’s cross-motion to the extent of tolling the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan after February 17, 2020 … . M&T Bank v Givens, 2025 NY Slip Op 05677, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: A foreclosure is an equitable proceeding triggering the exercise of discretion by the the judge. Here the extension of the deadline for the foreclosure sale due to the COVID pandemic was a proper exercise of discretion, but the denial of the motion to toll the accrual of interest during the delay was an abuse of discretion.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 RESULTED IN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not strictly comply with the provisions of RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint after trial:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . When this action was commenced in 2015, RPAPL 1304(1) required that the notice sent to borrowers contain the following language: “As of . . . , your home loan is . . . days in default. Under New York State Law, we are required to send you this notice to inform you that you are at risk of losing your home. You can cure this default by making the payment of . . . dollars by . . .” … .

Here, at the nonjury trial, the plaintiff submitted the notice sent to the defendant, which omitted the cure date as required by the statute. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Christiana Trust v Larmond, 2025 NY Slip Op 05664, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here the notice of foreclosure presented as evidence at trial did not comply with RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT ADEQUATE PROOF THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO AND RECIEVED BY THE DEFENDANT AS REQUIRED BY THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove the notice of default was mailed to defendant as required by the mortgage agreement:

The plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to establish that a notice of default in accordance with section 22 of the mortgage agreement was sent to the defendant as required by section 15 of the mortgage agreement. Section 15 of the mortgage agreement provides that notice to the borrower is considered sent “when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to [the borrower’s] notice address if sent by other means.” The affidavit of mailing was insufficient to establish a mailing by either first-class or certified mail. Although [the affidavit] asserted personal knowledge of the mailing, the affidavit was dated nine months after the date on which the notices of default were purportedly mailed, and the affidavit was unsupported by any contemporaneous documentation … . The certified mail receipts submitted by the plaintiff were not stamped or postmarked, and the domestic return receipts were unsigned. Thus, there was inadequate proof that the notices of default were actually delivered to the defendant. Further, although mailing may also be established by proof of a standard office mailing procedure … , in her affidavit [the foreclosure specialist] failed to make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff’s counsel, which apparently mailed the notices of default … and, in any event, failed to describe a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Singh, 2025 NY Slip Op 04938, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Once again, failure to prove mandatory notices were properly mailed and received by the defendant in a foreclosure action required reversal of the judgment of foreclosure.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, WHO MOVED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A HEARING ON WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE COMPLAINT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant, who had defaulted in this foreclosure action, was entitled to a hearing on whether he had been properly served with the complaint:

“Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service …”. “A defendant moving to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) must overcome the presumption raised by such an affidavit of service” …. . “While a mere conclusory denial of service will not suffice to rebut a prima facie showing of proper service, the sworn denial, combined with documentary and other evidence supporting such a claim, is sufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of proper service and to necessitate an evidentiary hearing” … . “If the presumption is rebutted, a hearing is necessary, at which the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence” … .

… [T]he defendant demonstrated his entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service through his affidavit and evidentiary submissions. The defendant averred that he has never lived at the address where he was purportedly served on February 28, 2008, and that he lived at a different address, 1222 35th Avenue in Long Island City, from 2004 through February 2008. He submitted proof of his residence at 1222 35th Avenue. Further, he submitted proof that the process server who allegedly served the defendant on February 28, 2008, swore that he served another individual in South Ozone Park at the exact same time. The defendant also submitted evidence that, in 2016, this particular process server’s application to renew his license as an individual process server was denied by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs on the basis that he had falsified affidavits of service. Since the defendant’s submissions rebutted the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit, the Supreme Court should have directed a hearing to determine whether personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendant … . Bank of N.Y. Trust Co., N.A. v Herbin, 2025 NY Slip Op 04865, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the proof requirements for a hearing on whether the court acquired jurisdiction through proper service of the complaint.​

 

, ,

NO FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WAS LAID; THE REFEREE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS; THE JUDGMENT OF FORELCOSURE SHOUILD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment of foreclosure was not supported because the referee’s report was based on documentary evidence which was not identified or produced and for which no foundation had been laid in the relevant affidavit:

… [T]he referee relied on an affidavit of Tom Croft, an “SVP of default” of Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff. Croft’s affidavit was insufficient to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a), because he failed to attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of his employer or the plaintiff … . Moreover, Croft’s computations were “based upon a review of unidentified and unproduced business records” and, consequently, “constitute[d] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ed] probative value” … on that additional ground. The error in relying on Croft’s hearsay evidence was not harmless, as, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the referee’s determination is not substantially supported by any admissible evidence in the record … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Barnett, 2025 NY Slip Op 04861, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Unless the business records relied upon in the referee’s report are produced and supported by an adequate foundation, the report is inadmissible hearsay.

 

,

THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) REPRESENTS A CHANGE IN THE LAW WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO RENEW; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (G&Q Estates Corp.’s) motion to renew based upon new law, the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), should have been granted and the foreclosure action should have been dismissed as time-barred:

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]). “Therefore, a motion for leave to renew is the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief from a prior order based on a change in the law” … . * * *

… G & Q Estates correctly contends that FAPA constituted a change in the law that would alter the Supreme Court’s prior determination of those branches of its prior cross-motion which were to vacate its default in appearing or answering the amended complaint and to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred … . The commencement of the 2007 action accelerated the mortgage debt and caused the six-year statute of limitations period to accrue, the voluntary discontinuance of that action did not de-accelerate the debt in light of the statutory amendments enacted by FAPA, and the limitations period thus expired in September 2013 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Mongru, 2025 NY Slip Op 04807, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) represents and change in the law which supports a motion to renew.

 

,

CALCULATONS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WERE BASED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS RENDERING THE CALCULATIONS HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report relied on calculations based on unidentified and unproduced business records, rendering the calculations hearsay. Therefore, the reports should not have been confirmed:

… [T]he referee’s findings with respect to the amount due to the plaintiff were based upon unidentified and unproduced business records … . Since the computations of the loan servicer’s employee as to the amounts due to the plaintiff were based on unidentified and unproduced business records, the employee’s assertions in those regards constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . TLOA Mtge., LLC v 109-08 N. Blvd, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04804, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: Any calculations relied upon in a referee’s report, even if done by a third party, must be supported by attached business records. Without the records, the calculations are hearsay.

 

,

STATEMENTS IN BOLD LETTERS ON THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE, AS WELL AS A CONSUMER NOTICE PURSUANT TO 15 USC SECTION 1692G, DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined statements included with the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice-of-foreclosure did not violate the “separate envelope” rule:

“The ‘separate envelope’ mandate of RPAPL 1304(2) provides that ‘[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice'” … . Here, in support of her cross-motion, the defendant presented evidence that the 90-day notices included an additional statement, in bold letters, at the bottom of each page, indicating that the notice was “AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT” and that “ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED . . . WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE,” as well as a consumer notice pursuant to 15 USC § 1692g. However, the subject language does not constitute an “other mailing or notice” in violation of the separate envelope mandate of RPAPL 1304(2). The additional material consisted of “accurate statements that further the underlying statutory purpose of providing information to borrowers that is or may become relevant to avoiding foreclosure” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Berry, 2025 NY Slip Op 04769, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: The separate envelope rule which requires that the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure be sent “in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice” was not violated here by statements in bold letters on the bottom of each page of the RPAPL 1304 notice or by the inclusion of a consumer notice pursuant to 15 USC section 1692g.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE WHEN IT WAS SENT, IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VERSION OF THE STATUTE IN EFFECT WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was sufficient at the time it was served, it did not meet the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements at the time the action was brought:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . “Where an RPAPL 1304 notice fails to reflect information mandated by the statute, . . . the statute will not have been strictly complied with and the notice will not be valid” … .

Here, although the language in a 90-day notice sent … in November 2016 complied with the language set forth in RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the time the notice was mailed … , the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the notice complied with the language set forth in RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the time this action was commenced in December 2018 … . Since there was more than a two-year period between the time that the notice was sent and the time that the action was commenced, “[n]othing prevented the plaintiff from sending the defendant a new RPAPL 1304 notice, using the updated language, 90 days prior to commencing this action” … . Accordingly, as the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Scarso, 2025 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with. Here the RPAP 1304 notice of foreclosure complied with the statute when it was sent, but not when the action was commenced. The bank’s summary judgment motion should have been denied.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy