You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

TO, SUA SPONTE, DECIDE BRANCHES OF A MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES DEPRIVED PLAIINTIFF OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THE JUDGE’S DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the judge should not have decided branches of a motion and cross-motion on a ground not raised by the parties, i.e. “in the interest of justice” on the ground the action was commenced “when foreclosures were stayed due to [the[ Covid-19 pandemic:”

“The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … . As the plaintiff correctly contends, the Supreme Court improperly determined the subject branches of the parties’ motion and cross-motion on the ground that the action was commenced when “foreclosures were stayed due to [the] Covid-19 pandemic.” Sino [defendant] did not argue in support of the cross-motion that the plaintiff improperly commenced the action during any COVID-19-related stay or that it was prejudiced because the action was commenced during any COVID-19-related stay. Thus, the plaintiff was prejudiced, since it was “never afforded the opportunity to present evidence refuting the court’s sua sponte determination” … . Accordingly, the court should not have determined the subject branches of the motion and cross-motion on a ground that was never raised by the parties … . Austin 26 Dental Group, PLLC v Sino Northeast Metals (U.S.A.), Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04187, Second Dept 8-14-24

Practice Point: Judges cannot decide motions on a ground not raised by the parties.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not prove defendant’s default in this foreclosure action because the relevant business records were not attached to the motion papers:

“In order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default” … . Although the plaintiff submitted the mortgage and the unpaid note, it failed to submit admissible evidence of the default.

“An affiant’s assertion regarding the defendant’s default, without the business records upon which he or she relied in making such an assertion, constitutes inadmissible hearsay” … . It is the business record itself that serves as proof of the matter asserted and “not the foundational affidavit” … .

Here, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of the servicer and attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff, which set forth that, “[a]ccording to the business records that I have reviewed . . . the Defendant Roy Daleo failed to comply with the terms of the Note and Mortgage by defaulting in the monthly payment that was due on April 1, 2013 and monthly thereafter.” The affiant did not attach the business records upon which she relied in making her assertion regarding the defendant’s alleged default, and no such records were attached to the plaintiff’s motion. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s witness was therefore inadmissible hearsay and failed to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden … .  MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Daleo, 2024 NY Slip Op 03477, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: To prove a defendant’s default in a foreclosure action, the affidavit alleging default must be accompanied by the supporting business records. If the records are not provided, the affidavit is hearsay.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure case did not have sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint sua sponte (another reminder that sua sponte dismissals of complaints rarely survive appeal);

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . “[A] court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by an arbitrary date set by the court” … . “To obtain appellate review of an order or portion of an order issued sua sponte, a party may move to vacate the order or portion of the order and appeal as of right to the Appellate Division if that motion to vacate is denied” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the … order and to restore the action to the court’s active calendar, as the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by July 26, 2017, was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint … . James B. Nutter & Co. v Heirs & distributees of the estate of Rose Middleton, 2024 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point; Failure to meet a filing deadline set by the court was not an adequate reason for the judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint.

 

,

WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined CPLR 308(2) was not violated by mailing the foreclosure summons and complaint to defendant in an envelope which indicated the contents were litigation-related. Although the address to which the documents were mailed was defendant’s business address, it also served has his residential address. The envelope-restrictions only apply to a mailing to a business address. In a matter of first impression, the First Department held the residential-address mailing-rules, not the business-address mailing restrictions, applied and CPLR 308(2) was not violated:

Defendant’s argument that where a dual purpose exists the business mailing restrictions prohibiting litigation-related markings on the envelope take precedence over the residential mailing conditions is untenable. This position would improperly render meaningless one provision in favor of the other for no apparent reason other than to benefit one side over the other … . … [A] close reading of CPLR 308(2)’s mailing requirements reveals an alternative construction that would resolve this interesting dilemma … . The placement of the phrase “last known residence” before the phrase “actual place of business” signals the Legislature’s clear intent to deem mailing to a defendant’s residence to be primary over a place of business. Indeed, the legislative history for the 1987 amendment to CPLR 308(2) strongly supports this reasoning … . The amendment providing for mailing to a place of business was to ameliorate the inability to locate a defendant’s residence. Thus, mailing to a residential address is primary over a mailing to a place of business, an option that was intended to be secondary in effectuating service of process. Based on the foregoing, where a defendant’s address is both residential and a place of business, the address may be deemed as a residential one in the affidavit of service, permitting a mailing in accordance with CPLR 308(2)’s residential mailing requirements. Under these circumstances, the mailing … did not violate CPLR 308(2)’s mailing requirements…. . AMK Capital Corp. v Plotch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03324, First Dept 6-18-24

Practice Point: Where a defendant’s mailing address is both a business address and a residential address, the CPLR 308(2) “business address” rule, i.e., the envelope must not indicate the contents are litigation-related, does not apply.

 

,

THE COVID FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM INSTITUTED BY HUD FOR FHA INSURED MORTGAGES APPLIED TO RENDER THE REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE IN THIS CASE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, addressing a question of first impression, determined that the COVID foreclosure moratorium instituted by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which stayed foreclosures on mortgages issued by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) applied to render an action to foreclose a reverse mortgage timely:

Courts and the legal community are now likely familiar with the 2020 executive orders that tolled time limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic … . On this appeal, we are asked to consider another governmental pause on business as usual that was spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 18, 2020, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter HUD) instituted a COVID-19-related moratorium that effectively stayed foreclosures with respect to mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (hereinafter FHA). This moratorium (hereinafter the FHA COVID-19 moratorium) remained in effect until July 31, 2021. This appeal presents an issue of apparent first impression for an appellate court in this State, namely, whether the statute of limitations for commencing a foreclosure action may be tolled by virtue of the FHA COVID-19 moratorium. We hold that the FHA COVID-19 moratorium, which constituted a stay of foreclosures of federally backed mortgages, may indeed toll the statute of limitations for commencing a foreclosure action, and, on the facts of this case, the FHA COVID-19 moratorium did toll the applicable limitations period. Given the benefit of the toll, one of the defendants timely commenced a separate but related action to foreclose a home equity conversion mortgage, also known as a reverse mortgage, and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, seeking to quiet title, brought by the alleged owner of the property encumbered by the reverse mortgage. Trento 67, LLC v OneWest Bank, N.A., 2024 NY Slip Op 03198, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Here the COVID foreclosure moratorium instituted by HUD for FHA-insured mortgages rendered the reverse mortgage foreclosure timely.

 

, ,

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint in this foreclosure action:

A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Badalamenti, 2024 NY Slip Op 03034, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: A sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is rarely upheld on appeal.

 

, , ,

SECOND DEPARTMENT TO JUDGES: DON’T DISMISS A COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, made the following point explicit: a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is almost never appropriate and almost always will be reversed:

Sua sponte dismissals are not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). The reason is that such dismissals are not, by definition, the product of motions made on notice for that particular relief as otherwise statutorily required. Nevertheless, the Second Department has consistently recognized the gravity of sua sponte dismissals and the lack of opportunity for aggrieved parties to have been heard on the dispositive issue at the trial level. Those circumstances have caused the Second Department to typically grant discretionary applications for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701[c]), or relatedly, to deem notices of appeal to be applications for leave to appeal, which have been liberally granted … . * * *

The importance that courts not dismiss actions sua sponte absent extraordinary circumstances is grounded in a fundamental concept that lawyers and judges know well—that due process requires parties to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard about litigation issues … . Courts are to be bastions of due process. It is not the role of the court, within the moat of that bastion, to seize upon an issue not raised by any party in a motion and to unilaterally dismiss an action on the basis of that discrete issue, without providing the party whose claim is dismissed so much as notice of the issue and an opportunity for all parties to be heard on it. The Court of Appeals has cautioned the judiciary that “[w]e are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide [matters] on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Louis, 2024 NY Slip Op 02948, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Judges should not dismiss complaints sua sponte because the parties are not given proper notice of the relevant issue and the parties do not have the opportunity to be heard on it.

 

,

ALTHOUGH ONLY STEPHEN BOTT SIGNED THE NOTE, BOTH HE AND CHRISTINE BOTT SIGNED THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE CHRISTINE BOTT WAS A “BORROWER” ENTITLED TO SEPARATE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304; THE JOINT NOTICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to notify both borrowers of the foreclosure action violated RPAPL 1304 and required that defendants’ summary judgment motion be granted. Although only Stephen Bott signed the note, he and Christine Bott executed the mortgage instrument. Therefor the joint RPAPL 1304 notice was invalid:

Although Stephen Bott was the only signatory to the note, both he and Christine Bott executed the mortgage, and Christine Bott is identified as a borrower on the first page of the mortgage. “Where, as here, a homeowner defendant is referred to as a ‘borrower’ in the mortgage instrument and, in that capacity, agrees to pay amounts due under the note, that defendant is a ‘borrower’ for the purposes of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding . . . any ambiguity created by a provision in the mortgage instrument to the effect that parties who did not sign the underlying note are not personally obligated to pay the sums secured” … . Therefore, Christine Bott was entitled to notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . Since it is undisputed that a jointly addressed 90-day notice, rather than individually addressed notices in separate envelopes, was sent to the defendants, the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304, and the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Bott, 2024 NY Slip Op 02524, Second Dept 5-8-24

Practice Point: A person obligated to pay the mortgage is a “borrower” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 even if that person did not sign the note. Each “borrower” is entitled to separate notice of the foreclosure. Here, the joint notice was invalid and defendant-borrowers’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.27 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DIRECTIVES; THE DISSENT ARGUED DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 202.27 WAS IMPROPER AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a substantive dissent, determined Supreme Court, sua sponte, properly dismissed the foreclosure action as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s directive. The dissent argued the criteria for a section 202.27 dismissal were not met and the motion to vacate the dismissal should have been granted:

… [W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that the action was improperly dismissed. Although the April 2020 order does not specify which statutory or regulatory basis was being relied upon to dismiss the action, this Court has “consistently held” that 22 NYCRR 202.27 authorizes a trial court to dismiss an action as abandoned where a “party fails to timely comply with a court’s directive to progress the case” … . Supreme Court described in its April 2020 order how plaintiff had made no effort to move this action forward since 2016 and how plaintiff was summoned to a status conference in November 2019, where the court directed plaintiff to move for a judgment of foreclosure no later than December 31, 2019. Plaintiff failed, without explanation, to comply with that directive, and Supreme Court was therefore within its discretion to dismiss the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.2 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Hartquist, 2024 NY Slip Op 02352, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: The court has the power to, sua sponte, dismiss an action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 where plaintiff has failed to comply with court directives.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL LOAN DOCUMENT AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the original loan document was not provided and the lost note affidavit was insufficient:

A plaintiff moving for leave to enter a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant’s failure to answer or appear … . Pursuant to UCC 3-804, “[t]he owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his [or her] own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his [or her] ownership, the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and its terms.” Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth the facts that prevented the production of the original home equity line of credit agreement … . The lost note affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants failed to state when the search for the credit agreement occurred, did not identify who conducted the search for the credit agreement, or explain when or how the credit agreement was lost … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Morton, 2024 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, in moving for a default judgment the bank did not provide the original loan document and did not provide a sufficient lost note affidavit. The motion should have been denied, criteria explained.

 

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