You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN THE ONE-YEAR ALLOWED BY STATUTE; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to move for a default judgment within and year and the motion should not have been granted:

… [T]he one-year period within which the plaintiff had to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment expired in March 2016 (see CPLR 3215[c]). The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference in September 2016, 18 months after this matter was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion … for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant was made beyond the one-year deadline imposed by CPLR 3215(c).

One exception to the mandatory language of CPLR 3215(c) is when “sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “This requires a showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment, and a showing that the cause of action is potentially meritorious” … . The determination as to whether an excuse is reasonable is committed to the sound discretion of the court, but reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated assertions that the delay in making its motion was attributable to the time spent in the mandatory foreclosure settlement conference part, and its need to comply with certain administrative orders, were insufficient to excuse the lengthy 18-month delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment … .

“Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse, this Court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Toscano, 2023 NY Slip Op 02294, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: If plaintiff does not have a reasonable excuse for failing to move for a default judgment within the one year allowed by statute, it is an abuse of discretion to grant the motion and whether there is a meritorious cause of action is irrelevant.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO MOVE FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE BY A SPECIFIED DATE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, rejecting its own precedent in this foreclosure action, determined the judge did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to appear at a status conference and move for an order of reference by a specified date:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . The plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive in the order dated September 13, 2017, was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint … . Moreover, the court was without authority to, sua sponte, direct dismissal of the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with its directive to proceed by motion where, as here, the plaintiff was entitled to proceed either by motion or trial … . …

… 22 NYCRR 202.27 was not a proper basis for directing dismissal of the complaint … . Where a party appears as scheduled, 22 NYCRR 202.27 “provides no basis for the court to summarily dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Nothing in the record establishes that the plaintiff did not appear or was not ready to proceed at the final status conference … . To the extent our cases have held that a failure to comply with a directive in a prior status conference order amounts to a nonappearance at the status conference or a failure to announce readiness to proceed “immediately or subject to the engagement of counsel” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 202.27 … , such cases should no longer be followed … . “In general, [t]he procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay” … where, as here, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216, which is the statutory provision addressing “[w]ant of prosecution,” have not been met…. . U.S. Bank N.A. v Bhagwandeen, 2023 NY Slip Op 02349, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: A judge’s authority to dismiss a complaint in the absence of the statutory conditions in CPLR 3216 (failure to prosecute) is extremely limited. Here in this foreclosure action the Second Department rejected its own precedent and held plaintiff’s alleged failure to appear at a status conference and comply with the directive to move for an order of reference by a specified date did not justify the sua-sponte dismissal of the complaint.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing its prior decision after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether it was notified of the tax foreclosure proceeding by defendant county. The Court of Appeals had ruled that, although the county proved the notice was mailed the letters were not returned, plaintiffs could prove the notice was not received by other evidence:

… “[A]lthough the statute contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is,by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance, an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) by other relevant proof, despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by section 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” … . …

Although we are aware that, on its own, failure to receive notice is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … , such failure, when combined with other evidence, can support a reasonable inference that defendants failed to comply with the mailing requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). … [I]f the notices were not received, there are only two real possibilities — either the procedure used by defendant County … failed to comply with RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) inasmuch as the wrong address was affixed, or the United States Postal Service made an error. When viewed in conjunction with the further facts that the certified mail tracking history indicated an unknown address and that the return receipt was unstamped, it is reasonable to infer, together with the additional evidence of nonreceipt, that the notices were not correctly mailed and that the County failed to comply with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02148, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: In this tax foreclosure proceeding, the county submitted prima facie proof it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1125 by submitting proof the letters were mailed and not returned. However, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that the notice was not received, which raised a question of fact about whether the county in fact complied with RPAPL 1125.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, HE WAS A TITLE-HOLDER AND WAS LISTED AS A BORROWER ON THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Kalenborn was entitled to the RPAL 1304 notice of foreclosure even though he did not sign the note. Kalenborn held title to the property and was listed as a “borrower” on the mortgage:

… [D]efendants established that the plaintiff failed to serve Douglas Kalenborn with notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304, and, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Douglas Kalenborn was entitled to such notice as a “borrower” within the meaning of that statute. Although Douglas Kalenborn did not sign the note, the plaintiff conceded that both of the defendants were title owners of the subject property and both executed the mortgage as a “borrower.” “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” … . Since Douglas Kalenborn “signed the mortgage as a ‘borrower’ and, in that capacity, agreed to pay the amounts due under the note, [he] was entitled to notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Kalenborn, 2023 NY Slip Op 02109, Second Dept 4-26-23

Practice Point: Here defendant did not sign he note but he was a title-holder and was listed as a borrower on the mortgage. Therefore defendant was entitled to notice of the foreclosure which met the requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, ,

​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the notice of foreclosure was mailed to defendant in accordance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff did not submit proof of actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures. Further, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, including “how the mail was transmitted to the postal service” … . Freedom Mtge. Corp. v King, 2023 NY Slip Op 02105, Second Dept 4-26-23

Practice Point: The plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove how the notice of foreclosure was transmitted to the postal service. Therefore compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not proven and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S CALCULATIONS WERE BASED WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE REFEREE’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been accepted because the business records upon which the calculations were based were not attached to the affidavit:

 … [A] referee’s computations based on the “review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … . Here, the referee based his calculations upon documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including the note and mortgage, as well as an affidavit of amount due and owing, submitted in support of the motion to confirm the referee’s report. However, the affidavit of amount due and owing does not identify the business records upon which the affiant relied in order to compute the total amount due on the mortgage, and there are no such records annexed thereto. Consequently, the referee’s findings in that regard were not substantially supported by the record … . M&T Bank v Bonilla, 2023 NY Slip Op 01989, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: To the extent an affidavit refers to business records which are not attached the affidavit is hearsay.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a directive to apply for an order of reference was not an appropriate ground for dismissing the complaint sua sponte:

“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 plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for an order of reference was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate order … and to restore the action to the active calendar. U.S. Bank N.A. v Turner, 2023 NY Slip Op 02023, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Sua sponte dismissals of complaints should be rare. Here the failure to file an application for an order of reference in a foreclosure action was not an adequate justification for a sua sponte dismissal.

 

,

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure proceeding did not demonstrate defendant’s default because the relevant business documents were not submitted:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer who averred … that based upon his review of certain business records maintained by the loan servicer and the plaintiff, he was familiar with the underlying mortgage loan and payment history of Hernandez [defendant]. However, the affiant, and the plaintiff, failed to submit any business records substantiating the alleged default … . “‘Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value'” … . “Even assuming that the subject affidavit established a sufficient foundation for the records relied upon, ‘it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted'” … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01888, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: An affidavit describing business records is hearsay if the records themselves are not attached.

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTATE IT HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HOW IT CAME INTO POSSESSION OF THE NOTE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action and its summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

A plaintiff demonstrates standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by establishing that “it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” … . “With respect to the note, either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” … . …

Other than alleging that he reviewed the electronic records that were kept in the normal course of business, [the affiant] failed to provide details with regard to how plaintiff came into possession of the note … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v LaFrate, 2023 NY Slip Op 01824, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: When the defendant raises lack-of-standing as an affirmative defense in a foreclosure action, the bank must demonstrate it came into possession of the note before commencing the action. Here the proof of standing was conclusory and lacking in detail. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse (law office failure) for not attending the settlement conference and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff’s allegation of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated. In an affirmation in support of the motion … to vacate the order of dismissal, the plaintiff’s counsel described her office’s standard practices and procedures for receiving and processing notices and orders, and posited that her office had not received notice of the scheduled conference because there were “no notes, scanned images, or calendar steps” in the files that she reviewed. The plaintiff … failed to provide an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure, provide any details regarding such failure, or provide any other evidence of the system’s purported breakdown that led to counsel’s nonappearance at the conference … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order of dismissal … . Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse its default, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hutchinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01782, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the claim that plaintiff missed the settlement conference due to law office failure was not supported by proof from a person with first hand knowledge. The motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted.

 

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