You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEBTOR TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE NON-DEBTOR CODEFENDANT YEARS BEFORE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY, THE BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE FORECLOSURE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION AGAINST THE DEBTOR; THE TOLL DID NOT APPLY TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE NON-DEBTOR WHICH NEVER FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure statute of limitations was tolled by the bankruptcy stay for the action against the defendant who filed for bankruptcy, but not for the defendant to which the property was transferred (who did not file for bankruptcy):

This appeal requires us to examine whether the stay provided by section 362 of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (11 USC § 362[a]) operates as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204(a) to toll the statute of limitations to commence a mortgage foreclosure action against a defendant debtor who no longer owns the property that is the subject of the mortgage foreclosure action. We hold that the bankruptcy stay pursuant to subsection 362(a)(1) (see 11 USC § 362[a][1]) tolls the statute of limitations for commencing a mortgage foreclosure action against the defendant debtor, regardless of whether that defendant owns the property at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

This appeal also requires us to determine whether the bankruptcy stay pursuant to subsection 362(a) applies to a nondebtor codefendant to which the defendant debtor transferred the property years before filing for bankruptcy. On the record before this Court, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of raising a question of fact as to whether the bankruptcy stay applied to the nondebtor codefendant. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeMatteis, 2023 NY Slip Op 05242, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Filing for bankruptcy tolls the foreclosure statute of limitations, even if the property had been transferred before the filing.

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE HOME WAS ILLUMINATED WHEN THE PROCESS SERVER ATTEMPTED SERVICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS EVADING SERVICE; THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT ATTEMPT SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; THE “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “nail and mail” service of process was invalid because the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate “due diligence” in attempting other methods of personal service:

“Service of process must be made in strict compliance with [the] statutory ‘methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person’ pursuant to CPLR 308” … . Here, the plaintiff purportedly served the defendant by the “affix and mail” method pursuant to CPLR 308(4). Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) cannot be made with “due diligence” … . “The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received” … .

Here, … the process server made prior attempts at personal delivery of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s residence at different times of the day between Thursday, December 21, 2017, and Friday, December 29, 2017. Although one of those times was on December 23, 2017, a Saturday, the attempts at service occurred at the height of the holiday season, when the defendant may have had reasons not to be home … . The process server noted that holiday lights were on in the windows of the residence on December 23, 2017, and that both floors of the residence were illuminated on December 26, 2017. Nevertheless, considering the holiday season, the process server’s observations were not a sufficient basis to believe that the defendant was evading service. Moreover, the process server stated that he was “unable” to speak to a neighbor regarding the defendant’s whereabouts.

In addition, in the year prior to the commencement of this action, the defendant was granted a loan modification, and as part of his application for a loan modification, the defendant was required to and did, in fact, disclose his employer and address of employment to the plaintiff. No attempts were made to serve the defendant at his place of employment. Bank of Am., N.A. v Fischer, 2023 NY Slip Op 05112, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Here the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate “due diligence” in attempting service at defendant’s home and there was no attempt to serve defendant at his place of employment. The “nail and mail” service was deemed invalid.

 

,

​ A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION NO LONGER STOPS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action no longer stops the running of the statute of limitations:

… [T]he six-year statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt in July 2011, when the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest commenced the 2011 action and elected to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage … . The instant action was commenced in October 2017, more than six years later (see CPLR 213[4] …). Under the recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (L 2022, ch 821, § 8 [eff Dec. 30, 2022]), the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action did not “in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute” (CPLR 3217[e]; see CPLR 203[h] … ). Under these new legal principles, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether enforcement of the mortgage loan is barred by the statute of limitations. CIT Bank, N.A. v Byers, 2023 NY Slip Op 04978, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (2022) the bank can no longer stop the running of the statute of limitations by voluntarily discontinuing the foreclosure action.

 

,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because the relevant business records were produced to support the affidavit:

Here, the referee based her findings upon her review of the note and mortgage, the summons and complaint, and an affidavit of merit and amount due of the plaintiff’s employee, which listed the amounts due by month and the interest rate, as well as the taxes and insurance paid on the defendant’s account. However, as the defendant correctly contends, the affidavit “constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records [s]he purportedly relied upon in making [her] calculations” … . Moreover, while the referee’s report found that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel, the referee failed to identify the documents or other sources upon which she based that finding … . Under the circumstances, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due and whether the subject property could be sold in one parcel were not substantially supported by the record … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Laronga, 2023 NY Slip Op 04793, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: If the referee’s report in a foreclosure action is based on business records, those records must be produced.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed. The proof the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304 was insufficient:

… [T]he testimony of the plaintiff’s sole witness at trial, Lawrence Nardi, a case manager for the plaintiff’s servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing (hereinafter SPS), was insufficient to establish a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that notices were properly addressed and mailed … . Moreover, while the plaintiff presented copies of 90-day notices containing a 20-digit bar code, those letters contained no language indicating that they were sent by first-class or certified mail, or even that a mailing was done by the U.S. Postal Service … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to present any receipt or corresponding document issued by the U.S. Postal Service showing that the notice was actually sent by first-class or certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action … . Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Kissi, 2023 NY Slip Op 04790, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: Here the bank did not prove the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304. Therefore the referee’s report should not have been confirmed.

 

, , ,

THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE AND THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements in the mortgage as well land the notice requirements imposed the RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated. Plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment:

… [N]either the affidavits nor the business records made the requisite demonstration of mailing as required by the mortgage agreement … . Although one of Serterus’s [the mortgage servicer’s] employees stated that Serterus followed the prior mortgage servicer’s procedures for mailing the default notice, she stated only that she had personal knowledge of Serterus’s recordkeeping practices and procedures, not that she had personal knowledge that the notice of default was actually mailed. Nor did the employee attest to her familiarity with the mailing procedures of either Chase, which the default notice identified as the sender, or its servicer … . Although the employee stated that records of the mailing were attached, the only record of mailing of the notice was the notice itself, which contained no information about whether and when it was mailed. Similarly, the affidavit by the other Serterus employee lacked any indication of how she concluded that the contractual default notice was, in fact, sent. In addition, defendant submitted an affidavit denying ever having received the notice … .

Further, service of the 90-day notice pre-foreclosure notice required by RPAPL 1304 did not comply with the requirement of service of the default notice required under the mortgage agreement. The mortgage agreement required that the default notice thereunder inform the defendant borrower that if the default was not cured by the date stated in the notice, the lender may require immediate payment in full. However, the RPAPL 1304 notice contains no such statement. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Adago, 2023 NY Slip Op 04717, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Proof of compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements in the mortgage as well as the notice requirements imposed by RPAPL 1304 are prerequisites to foreclosure.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action and did not demonstrate it complied with the notice-of-default requirement in the mortgage:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it had standing to commence this action. Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and three undated purported allonges, one of which was endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were each on a piece of paper completely separate from the note and the other allonges, were “so firmly affixed” to the note “as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … .

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish its status as the holder of the note at the time of the commencement of the action. In her affidavit, a representative employed by the plaintiff’s loan servicer did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, and therefore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by the affiant were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, which required that it provide the defendant with a notice of default prior to demanding payment of the loan in full. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not establish that a notice of default was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the defendant’s “notice address” if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Yoel, 2023 NY Slip Op 04682, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: If the defendant in a foreclosure action alleges the bank lacks standing to bring the action, the bank must demonstrate it was the holder of the note at the time the action was brought. In addition, the UCC requires that allonges endorsed in blank be “firmly affixed” to the note.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “GOOD CAUSE” FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, BUT DID DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO AN EXTENSION IN THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time for service of process in this foreclosure action should have been granted. Although plaintiff did not demonstrate “good cause” for the failure to timely serve, the motion met the criteria for an extension in the interest of justice:

“Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service of the summons and complaint for good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . “Good cause and interest of justice are two separate and independent statutory standards” … . “Good cause requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service” … . “[I]n deciding whether to grant a motion to extend the time for service in the interest of justice, the court must carefully analyze the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter” … . Under the interest of justice standard, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to [the] defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b. In support of the motion, the plaintiff offered nothing more than the affidavit of service of its process server. While a process server’s affidavit of service creates a presumption of proper service, the Supreme Court had already determined that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on the validity of service of process … .

However, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice. The plaintiff established that the action was timely commenced, that service was timely attempted and was perceived by the plaintiff to have been made within 120 days after the commencement of the action, and that the plaintiff promptly sought an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged service on the ground that it was defective. The plaintiff also established that the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiff made its motion to extend the time to serve, that the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action, and that there was no identifiable prejudice to the defendant attributable to the delay in service … . Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Lyons, 2023 NY Slip Op 04654, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: If you can’t demonstrate “good cause” for an extension of time for service of process, you still may be entitled to an extension in the “interest of justice.”

 

, ,

THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, and the motion to treat the dismissal motion as a summary judgment motion should not have been granted. The motion should not have been treated as a summary judgment motion because it was premature. The motion should not have been granted as a dismissal based on documentary evidence because the affidavits submitted by the defendants do not constitute “documentary evidence” within the meaning of the CPLR:

The record demonstrates that the defendants’ pre-answer motion was made less than two months after the action was commenced, and that the plaintiff has had no opportunity to conduct discovery. Further, the defendants seek summary dismissal on the basis of facts asserted in their affidavits about which the plaintiff has no personal knowledge. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is correct that a summary judgment motion would be premature … . Therefore, the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) should not have been converted into a motion for summary judgment … . * * *

“While a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” …  by showing that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff “is not a fact at all” and that “no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . * * *

The affidavits submitted by the defendants, which merely contained conclusory denials of the facts asserted by the plaintiff in the complaint, as well as bare factual assertions regarding their use and occupancy of the subject premises, did not demonstrate that “a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all” and that “no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . Russo v Crisona, 2023 NY Slip Op 04438, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: Although a pre-answer motion to dismiss can be converted to a motion for summary judgment, to do so here was premature. Affidavits generally will not be enough to warrant granting a motion to dismiss. Affidavits are not “documentary evidence.”

 

, ,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the bank’s failure to comply with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 can be raised as a defense at any time before the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Here the defense was raised in opposition to the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report:

… “[F]ailure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is a defense that may be raised at any time prior to the entry of judgment of foreclosure and sale” … and thus, the defendants properly raised it in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

“Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304 requires that the notice be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower … .

… The affidavit of Brittany Wilson, an officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. … , the servicing agent of the plaintiff, was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. While Wilson attested that she was familiar with Wells Fargo’s records and record-keeping practices and that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notices, which were attached to her affidavit, she failed to attest that she personally mailed the notices or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Wells Fargo. Therefore, the plaintiff “failed to establish proof of standard office practice and procedures designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Valencia, 2023 NY Slip Op 04426, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: The bank’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the notice of foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304 can be raised at any time before the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

 

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