You are here: / Foreclosure
,

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.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE SET IN A STATUS CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure proceeding should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint when plaintiff did not move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by the deadline set in a status conference order:

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a status conference order … directing the plaintiff to “file an application for a [j]udgment of [f]oreclosure [and] sale” by June 7, 2017. The plaintiff failed to do so. In an order entered June 15, 2017 (hereinafter the dismissal order), the court, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency.

A court’s power to dismiss an action, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by the … status conference order was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Martinez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01179, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Sua sponte dismissals of complaints are disfavored. Here the failure to meet a deadline set in a status conference did not justify a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint.

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense (alleging failure to comply with RPAPL 1306) should not have been granted to the plaintiff in this foreclosure action. Because there was no proof of when the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed, proof that plaintiff had filed papers with the superintendent of financial services pursuant to RPAPL 1306 was insufficient. RPAPL 1306 requires filing within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice. But the date of mailing was not proven:

… [I]n the absence of evidence establishing when the plaintiff mailed the notices required by RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff could not establish, as a matter of law, that it complied with the requirement of RPAPL 1306 to file with the superintendent of financial services within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304. Thus, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defendant’s fifth affirmative defense as alleged a failure to comply with RPAPL 1306…. . PROF-2013-S3 Legal Title Trust V v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01204, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if there is no proof when the RPAPL 1304 notice of default was mailed, the bank can’t prove the papers filed pursuant to RPAPL 1306 were filed within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice (which is a requirement of strict compliance with RPAPL 1306).

 

, ,

THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF COLLATERAL TO THE MAJORITY LENDERS WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE MINORITY LENDERS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS IN THIS PRIVATE FORECLOSURE; THE MINORITY LENDERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the breach of contract claims by the minority lenders against the majority lenders and a collateral agent should not have been dismissed. Collateral was sold to the majority lenders but the proceeds were not distributed to the minority lenders in the manner required by the credit and security agreements. The opinion is fact-specific and far too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he pro rata sharing provisions required that all minority lenders receive pro rata treatment of their debt obligations, which meant that the proceeds of the sale of the collateral (notes and equity) should have been distributed to all secured lenders pro rata in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement. … While the Collateral Agent, as directed by the majority lenders, was authorized to define the terms, conditions, and limitations of how the restructuring sale should be carried out, the reorganization had to be for the pro rata benefit of all those holders of secured debt, including minority lenders. Thus, the minority lenders have the right to object to the restructure sale conducted through credit bidding based upon the failure to provide them adequate protection of their pro rata interest on the foreclosed collateral. AEA Middle Mkt. Debt Funding LLC v Marblegate Asset Mgt., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01157, First Dept 3-7-23

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion concerns a private foreclosure of collateral and the distribution of the proceeds to the majority and minority lenders pursuant to complex credit and security agreements.

 

, ,

WHERE ONE OF TWO RELATED FORECLOSURE ACTIONS IS SUBJECT TO A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO DISMISS AS TIME-BARRED, IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TIME-BARRED ACTION WITH THE TIMELY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined that where one action is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss as time-barred, it is an abuse of discretion for a judge to grant a motion to consolidate that action with another which is timely:

… [B]oth actions are to foreclose on the same mortgage securing the same debt owed by the same defendant. However, in our view, a precondition for merging two or more actions is that each action should itself be viable, meaning that neither is confronted with a pending—and apparently meritorious—motion to dismiss. Once the defendant here met her burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the 2017 action had expired, it became the plaintiff’s burden to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period. The plaintiff could not meet that shifted burden by merely asserting that the 2017 action will become timely once it is merged with the timely 2008 action. The purpose of consolidation under CPLR 602(a) is not to provide a party with a procedural end run around a legal defense applicable to one of the actions. In our opinion, in such instances, judicial discretion should not be used to cure the untimeliness of one action by tethering it to a related timely action. We hold, as an issue of apparent first impression that, in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting consolidation and that, in general, consolidation should be denied where one of the cases to be consolidated is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss…. . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Francis, 2023 NY Slip Op 00992, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here there were two related foreclosure actions. One was subject to dismissal as time-barred and the other was timely. The two should not be consolidated as an end-run around the statute of limitations.

 

, ,

AN “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT HAS DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAN A “GOOD CAUSE” EXTENSION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for more time to serve the defendant in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The different criteria for an “interest of justice” versus a “good cause” request for an extension is explained:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice … . “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” … .

… The plaintiff demonstrated that the action was timely commenced, that service was timely attempted and was believed by the plaintiff to have been made within 120 days after the commencement of the action but was subsequently found to be defective, that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the extension of time would not prejudice the defendant as the defendant had actual notice of the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Boakye-Yiadom, 2023 NY Slip Op 01026, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: An “interest of justice” extension of time to serve a defendant has different criteria than a “good cause” extension. The criteria are explained.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE ANSWER DESPITE THE FAILURE TO MAKE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; THE DEFENDANT GETS A SECOND CHANCE TO ADD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IF THE COURT GRANT’S LEAVE TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action should have been allowed to amend the answer:

… Supreme Court … should not have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross-motion which was for leave to amend his answer to assert an affirmative defense alleging lack of compliance with the condition precedent in the mortgage agreement requiring a notice of default. In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b] …). Lateness alone is not a barrier to the amendment … . “‘It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . Moreover, although a defense is generally waived under CPLR 3211(e) where not raised in an answer or made the subject of a motion to dismiss, it can be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . Wall St. Mtge. Bankers, Ltd. v Berquin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01025, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: The court can grant a defendant leave to amend an answer where the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss on the ground which is the subject of the amendment. In other words, if the defendant fails to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss and the initial answer does not include the affirmative defense which could have been the basis of a motion to dismiss, the defendant gets another chance in an amendment of the answer by leave of court.

 

,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the failure to submit the business records referred to in plaintiff’s affidavit rendered the affidavit hearsay. Therefore plaintiff bank did not present prima facie proof of defendant’s default:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer, who averred that he reviewed certain business records maintained by the loan servicer and the defendant defaulted in making payments on the mortgage debt. However, the affiant failed to submit any business record 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” … . Accordingly, the affiant’s assertions regarding the defendant’s alleged default, without the business records upon which he relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Rashid, 2023 NY Slip Op 00859, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: An affidavit based upon business records which are not attached is hearsay.

 

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