You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WERE CHANGED BETWEEN THE TIME THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE DEFENDANTS AND WHEN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT; THEREFORE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The RPAPL 1304 notice requirements were changed between the time the notice was sent to defendants and when foreclosure action was commenced. Therefore the RPAPL 1304 notice, a condition precedent to any foreclosure action, was invalid:

Here, the plaintiff’s RPAPL 1304 notice, dated July 15, 2016, contained the statutory language that was in effect at the time of the notice. However, RPAPL 1304 was amended effective December 20, 2016, and the amendment changed the language that the statute required the notice to contain … . Thus, the plaintiff’s July 15, 2016 RPAPL 1304 notice did not satisfy the condition precedent to litigation for this action commenced in August 2017, after the effective date of the amendment … . Although this issue is raised for the first time on appeal, it may be reached as it involves a pure question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if brought to the court’s attention at the proper juncture … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Fischman, 2026 NY Slip Op 05212, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: The RPAPL 1304 foreclosure notice provisions were changed by amendment between the time the notice was sent to defendants and the action was brought, rendering the notice defective. The issue was properly raised for the first time on appeal.​

 

, ,

ELECTRONIC FILING OF A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT AND FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE THE SERVICE METHOD CODIFIED IN RPAPL 1371(2); HERE THE IMPROPER SERVICE WAS A BAR TO ENTRY OF THE DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the electronic filing of the motion to confirm the referee’s report and for leave to file a deficiency judgment was not proper service pursuant to RPAPL 1371(2). The improper service constituted a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment:

The plaintiff … moved to confirm a referee’s report of sale and for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against Newman in the sum of $1,222,732.14. … Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion. A judgment was entered … in favor of the plaintiff … . …

RPAPL 1371(2) specifies the manner in which notice of such motions shall be served, and upon whom the notice shall be served, as follows: “Simultaneously with the making of a motion for an order confirming the sale, . . . the party to whom such residue shall be owing may make a motion in the action for leave to enter a deficiency judgment upon notice to the party against whom such judgment is sought or the attorney who shall have appeared for such party in such action. Such notice shall be served personally or in such other manner as the court may direct.”

Here, the plaintiff’s electronic filing of the motion papers on the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System did not constitute proper service in accordance with RPAPL 1371(2) … Consequently, “‘this constitutes a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment'” … . 11-36 31st Ave. Lender, LLC v RM Newman, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05151, Second Dept 902026

Practice Point: Electronic filing of a motion to confirm a referee’s report and for leave to enter a default judgment is improper service. The correct method of service is codified in RPAPL 1371(2).

 

, ,

HERE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF FILED A REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION SEEKING A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY OR DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION TO AVOID DISMISSAL FOR ABANDONMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215(C); ANY FURTHER DELAYS AFTER THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION ARE IRRELEVANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not abandon the action because it filed a request for judicial intervention seeking a settlement conference within one year of defendant’s default:

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “To avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), it is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default. Rather, as long as ‘proceedings’ are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case should not be subject to dismissal” … . The filing of a request for judicial intervention that seeks a residential mortgage foreclosure settlement conference as mandated by CPLR 3408 constitutes the taking of proceedings under CPLR 3215(c) … . * * *

Since the plaintiff demonstrated that it initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale within one year after [the] default, it was not required to proffer a reasonable excuse or demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Furthermore, “once the plaintiff established that it had initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year after the defendants’ default, it was in compliance with CPLR 3215(c) and it was not required, under the plain language of that subdivision, to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c)” … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Miller, 2026 NY Slip Op 05153, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: If, in a foreclosure action, plaintiff files a request for judicial intervention and a settlement conference within one year of defendant’s default, plaintiff need not provide an excuse for the delay or demonstrate a meritorious cause of action to avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). Once proceedings have been taken within one year of default, any further delays after the taking of proceedings are irrelevant to any claim of abandonment.

 

,

SERVICE OF A VALID RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; HERE THE AMOUNT OWED INDICATED IN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICES DIFFERED FROM THE AMOUNT OWED INDICATED IN THE COMPLAINT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INCORRECT AND THEREFORE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined there were questions of fact about whether the RPAPL 1304 notices were defective on their faces. The amount owed indicated in the RPAPL 1304 notices differed from the amount owed described in the complaint. Service of a valid RPAPL 1304 notice is a condition precedent to a foreclosure action. There must be strict compliance with the RPAPL 1304 content requirements:

… [P]laintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of triable issues of fact as to its strict compliance with the content requirements of RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304(1) requires that the 90-day notice state: “As of ___, your home loan is ___ days and ___ dollars in default.” The instant RPAPL 1304 notices stated: “As of 07/05/2023, your home loan is 4954 days and $735,151.56 dollars in default.” In contrast, the complaint stated that “there is now due and owing to the Plaintiff under said Note and Mortgage the principal sum of $440,882.36, with interest thereon from September 1, 2009.” Although the complaint noted that the plaintiff “only seeks to collect those installments which are within 6 years past due as of the date of commencement,” the complaint clarified in a footnote that the amount of $440,882.36 “reflects the unpaid principal balance as of the default date and interest paid through date.” At least one of these documents, then, contained an error concerning the amount due on the note—information that was required under RPAPL 1304. Residential Mtge. Loan Trust 2013-TT2 v Elshiekh. 2026 NY Slip Op 05124, Second Dept 8-26-26

Practice Point: If the amount owed indicated in the RPAPL 1304 notice is incorrect, the notice is invalid and this condition precedent for a foreclosure action has not been fulfilled.

 

, , , ,

APPARENTLY THE MORTGAGOR WAS DECEASED AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED RENDERING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION A NULLITY; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, SO AMENDING THE CAPTION TO ADD THE EXECUTOR DID NOT EFFECTUATE JURISDICTION OVER THE ESTATE; ECHO BAY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE MORTGAGOR’S SUCCESSORS FOUR YEARS LATER; ECHO BAY HAD THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE, MOVE TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE, AND MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granting the motion to intervene and dismissing the foreclosure complaint, apparently determined the mortgagor was deceased at the time the foreclosure action was brought rendering the action a nullity. Therefore Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to amend the caption to add the mortgagor’s executor. For years later, Echo Bay purchased the property from the mortgagor’s successors and properly moved to intervene, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint:

“‘A party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person'” … , and an action to foreclose a mortgage is a legal nullity insofar as asserted against a deceased mortgagor … . “A judgment or order issued without subject matter jurisdiction is void, and that defect may be raised at any time and may not be waived” … . * * *

… [T]he fact that Echo Ray obtained its interest in the property after the action was commenced and the notice of pendency was filed does not bar intervention … , and that branch of the plaintiff’s prior motion which was for leave to amend the caption to substitute the executor of [mortgagor’s] estate as a defendant in this action did not effectuate jurisdiction over her estate … . * * *

… Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the motion of Echo Ray which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint, as the action was a legal nullity insofar as asserted against [the mortgagor], the sole borrower and property owner as alleged in the complaint … . The owner of the property is an indispensable party to a foreclosure action (see RPAPL 1311[1] …). “The absence of an indispensable party mandates dismissal of the action, and the plaintiff cannot maintain the action as against the other defendants” … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Jackson, 2026 NY Slip Op 04927, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: If the mortgagor is deceased when the foreclosure action is commenced, the action is a nullity and the judgment of foreclosure and sale is void. A subsequent purchaser of the property can successfully move to intervene, vacate the judgment and dismiss the foreclosure complaint.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAIVED THE OBJECTION TO A LATE ANSWER BY FAILING TO REJECT THE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT; DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff waived any objection to the defendants’ late answer by failing to reject the answer within 15 days of receipt:

Pursuant to CPLR 2101(f), “[t]he party on whom a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, the party on whom the paper is served returns the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular objections.” Here, the plaintiff’s undisputed failure to reject the defendants’ answer within the 15-day statutory time frame constituted a waiver of the late service and the default … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants … . PNC Bank, N.A. v Kane, 2026 NY Slip Op 04967, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: If plaintiff wishes to object to receipt of a late answer, plaintiff must reject the answer within 15 days or the objection is waived and the defendant can move to compel acceptance.

 

, ,

WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER DIES INTESTATE, AND THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, THE FORECLOSURE ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT DIRECTLY AGAINST THE HEIRS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; THE ESTATE IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action against the heir of the decedent property owner should not have been dismissed. Where the property owner dies intestate, and plaintiff is not seeking a deficiency judgment, the foreclosure action can proceed directly against the heirs of the property owner. The estate is not a necessary party:

… [Where] “a property owner dies intestate, title to real property is automatically vested in his or her distributees” … . “Thus, where a mortgagor/property owner dies intestate and the mortgagee does not seek a deficiency judgment, generally a foreclosure action may be commenced directly against the distributees” … . Here, because the decedent died intestate, and because the plaintiff no longer seeks a deficiency judgment, the decedent’s estate was not a necessary party, and the plaintiff could proceed directly against the distributees of the decedent’s estate … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Unknown Heirs to the Estate of Jacinto Ortiz, 2026 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 7-29-26

Practice Point: Where the property owner dies intestate, and plaintiff is not seeking a deficiency judgment, the foreclosure action may proceed directly against the distributees, the estate is not a necessary party.

 

, ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT REFERRED TO UNPRODUCED DOCUMENTS RENDERING IT INADMISSBILE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed. The documents upon which the report was based were not produced, rendering the report inadmissible hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff’s motion which were to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale should have been denied. “The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . However, computations based upon a review of unidentified and unproduced business records constitute inadmissible hearsay and lack probative value … .

Here, the referee’s report indicates, among other things, that “[t]he information contained herein was obtained from the books and records of plaintiff pertaining to the defendants’ loan and payment history.” However, the record does not reflect that those books and records were annexed to an affidavit of an another officer of the plaintiff’s former loan servicer. As the defendants contended in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to confirm the referee’s report and in support of their cross-motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 4403 to reject the referee’s report, and as they contend on appeal, the referee’s computations as to the amounts due to the plaintiff for advances of taxes and insurance were based on unidentified and unproduced business records, and therefore, the referee’s assertions in those regards constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Prestia, 2026 NY Slip Op 04735, Second Dept 7-29-26

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK USED THE CORRECT LANGUAGE IN ITS RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE LEGISLATION HAD BEEN AMENDED CHANGING “YOU COULD LOSE YOUR HOME” TO “YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE;” RPAPL 1304 MUST BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants in this foreclosure action raised a question of fact whether the bank complied with the notice requirements in RPAPL 1304, which had been changed prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action:

On December 20, 2016, the Legislature amended RPAPL 1304 to change the language required in the 90-day notice … . The amendment changed the opening language from “YOU COULD LOSE YOUR HOME” to “YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE” … . The amendment also added the language: “IMPORTANT: You have the right to remain in your home until you receive a court order telling you to leave the property. If a foreclosure action is filed against you in court, you still have the right to remain in the home until a court orders you to leave. You legally remain the owner of and are responsible for the property until the property is sold by you or by order of the court at the conclusion of any foreclosure proceedings. This notice is not an eviction notice, and a foreclosure action has not yet been commenced against you” … . This statutory language was in effect at the time this action was commenced, in July 2018 … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that the notice sent to the defendants complied with the statutory language of RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the commencement of the action. Since the notice was sent more than a year and a half prior to the commencement of the action, nothing prevented the plaintiff from sending the defendants a new RPAPL 1304 notice, using the updated language, 90 days prior to commencing the action … . The defendants, therefore, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the time the action was commenced. Bank of Am., N.A. v Thomas, 2026 NY Slip Op 04485, Second Dept 7-22-26

Practice Point: Here the bank failed to establish it used the correct statutory language in its RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure, raising a question of fact about whether RPAPL 1304 was strictly complied with.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, SUA SPONTE, AGAINST A DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE PHRASE IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION REQUESTING “SUCH OTHER RELIEF” AS IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DISPOSITIVE RELIEF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted a default judgment against defendant Molina in this foreclosure action. There were two defendants, Pena and Molina. Pena answered the complaint but Molina did not. The notice of motion seeking summary judgment did not mention Molina. Therefore the judge should not have granted relief not demanded by the plaintiff:

“Among the statutory requirements [set forth in CPLR 2214(a) and (b)] is that notices of motion set forth ‘the relief demanded and the grounds therefor.’ The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders a resulting order void” … . In other words, “[a] court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief against a defaulting party where that relief is not requested in the moving papers” … .

Here, since the plaintiff did not move for leave to enter a default judgment against Molina, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted that relief … . As the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief … , so much of the order … , as, sua sponte, granted leave to enter a default judgment against Molina was rendered void … , “‘warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)'” … . As to the court’s reliance on the language in the notice of motion seeking “such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper,” this Court has explicitly held that courts may not “rely upon general relief clauses in noticed motions—’for such other and further relief the court deems just and proper’—to justify the sua sponte [granting of dispositive relief]” … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Pena, 2026 NY Slip Op 03940, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: The phrase in motion papers requesting “such other relief as is deemed appropriate” cannot be the basis for dispositive relief.​

 

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