You are here: / Foreclosure
,

THE COUNTY HAD IN REM JURISDICTION IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AND MADE ADEQUATE ATTEMPTS TO NOTIFY THE NECESSARY PARTIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, affirming the appellate division, determined the county had in rem jurisdiction in this tax foreclosure proceeding and the county’s attempts to notify all parties of the tax foreclosure proceedings were sufficient:

Two fundamental legal principles govern our decision in this appeal. First, a tax foreclosure proceeding is in rem against the “res”—the taxable real property—and not an action in personam commenced against an individual to establish personal liability. Second, New York statutory law and state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process require that the petitioner in a foreclosure proceeding must attempt notice that is reasonably calculated to alert all parties with an interest in the property.

Here, defendants commenced an in rem tax foreclosure proceeding and mailed the statutorily-required notice to the publicly-listed owners of the property, posted and filed the notice, and publicized the notice in the press. Upon learning that a person listed as an owner died before the notices were issued, defendant County Treasurer also personally contacted the sole business located on the property in an effort to identify and personally inform a manager, owner, or any person in charge of the pending foreclosure proceeding. Under these circumstances, defendants provided legally adequate notice of a validly commenced tax foreclosure action. Hetelekides v County of Ontario, 2023 NY Slip Op 00803, CtApp 2-14-23

Practice Point: A tax foreclosure proceeding is an in rem proceeding against the taxable real property, not an in personam action against an individual.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED AS A JOHN DOE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND BECAUSE HE WAS SUED AS AN HEIR TO THE MORTGAGEE, AND NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MORTGAGEE’S ESTATE, THE ACTION WAS TIME BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined defendant was not properly substituted in the amended complaint for a John Doe in the original complaint and, because defendant was sued in his capacity as the heir of the decedent, and not as a representative of the decedent’s estate, the action was time-barred:

Plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action … against … the mortgagee, David B. Bailey (decedent), and certain “John Does” and “Jane Does” defined in the complaint as “the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint.” Plaintiff subsequently discovered that decedent had died in 2018 and made an ex parte application seeking … to substitute Arthur Bailey, in his capacity as heir to decedent’s estate (defendant), as a John Doe defendant and for leave to file an amended complaint. …

We agree with defendant that his motion should be granted insofar as it seeks dismissal of the amended complaint against him. Defendant correctly contends that he was improperly substituted as John Doe #1 pursuant to CPLR 1024. Inasmuch as the original complaint “fail[ed] to mention decedent’s death” and defendant is being sued in the amended complaint in his capacity as an heir to decedent’s estate, defendant does not fit within the categories of John and Jane Does set forth in the original complaint and thus cannot be substituted therefor … . Further, although here plaintiff also filed and served an amended complaint on defendant solely in his capacity as heir to decedent’s estate and not as a representative thereof (… see generally EPTL 3-3.6 [a], [b] …), … the relevant statute of limitations expired prior to the order granting plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to file the amended complaint (see generally CPLR 213 [4]). Citibank, N.A. v Bailey, 2023 NY Slip Op 00777, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: If a defendant does not fit any of the “John Doe” categories described in the original complaint, he cannot be added as a John Doe in an amended complaint.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing or compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“[A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through proof that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of commencement of the action” … . Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and a chain of purported allonges ending with an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were on pieces of paper completely separate from the note, were “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

Johnson’s [the foreclosure specialist’s] affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …  Further, Johnson’s affidavit failed to address the nature of Fay’s [plaintiff’s loan servicer’s] relationship with LenderLive [third-party vendor which sent the RPAPL 1304 notice] and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into Fay’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Johnson’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Finally, the tracking numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 …) . US Bank N.A. v Okoye-Oyibo, 2023 NY Slip Op 00457, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here there was no evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note; therefore the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action was not demonstrated.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WHY AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRECLUDED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Supreme Court initially denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment because the proof the notice of default was properly mailed was insufficient. The bank made a motion for leave to renew and submitted an affidavit which Supreme Court deemed sufficient. The Second Department held that the bank’s failure to explain why the affidavit wasn’t produced for the bank’s initial motion precluded renewal:

In support of that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Alicia Hernandez, who averred that the required notice of default was mailed by first-class mail and that the address to which the notice of default was sent was the actual notice address. The only explanation offered by the plaintiff for its failure to submit the Hernandez affidavit on its prior motion was that it reasonably believed that the evidentiary submission it had made on the prior motion was sufficient to establish its prima facie case. This contention is devoid of merit. “A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance” … . In the instant matter, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any valid reason why the Hernandez affidavit could not have been submitted on its prior motion. Since the Hernandez affidavit was submitted without demonstrating a reasonable justification for failing to submit it on the prior motion, renewal should have been denied … . JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v EY Bay Ridge, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00311, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, the bank’s failure to explain why proof of proper mailing of the notice of default was not presented in the initial summary judgment motion required the denial of the bank’s motion for leave to renew.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

… [T]he plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Brown, an employee of Nationstar, the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who stated that the plaintiff had mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice in accordance with the plaintiff’s practices and procedures. However, Brown then stated that her conclusion was based on her review of Nationstar’s file, and on Nationstar’s mailing practices and procedures. Thus, Brown’s affidavit failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to who actually mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice, and the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Matsuoka, 2023 NY Slip Op 00230, Second Dept 1-18-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the bank doesn’t prove who mailed the notice of foreclosure as required by RPAPL 1304 the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

 

, ,

TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A) THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PATTERN OF NEGLECT, NOT, AS HERE, A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL); THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that dismissal for failure to prosecute requires more than one instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready to proceed on the trial date). Rather, a pattern of neglect must be shown in order to deprive plaintiff of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a):

While the prior action was dismissed due to plaintiff’s unreadiness to go forward with the trial as scheduled on December 16, 2022 … , the … trial court, in dismissing the case, did not set forth on the record any additional instances of neglect by the plaintiff that could “demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” (CPLR 205[a] …), as opposed to one particular lapse, namely, the lack of readiness on the trial date. The court’s statement that the case had been “languishing since 2010” does not suffice, inasmuch as it fails to specify any “specific conduct . . . demonstrat[ing] a general pattern of delay” (CPLR 205[a] …). As this Court has recently held, a “general pattern of delay” must comprise more than one instance of dilatory conduct … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Fox, 2023 NY Slip Op 00046, First Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff will not be deprived of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a) unless there has been more than a single instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready for trial). In addition, the judge must, in the order dismissing the action, set forth the facts demonstrating a pattern of neglect before the plaintiff will be prohibited from recommencing the action.

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 RE: WHETHER THE BANK ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action were entitled to a hearing on whether plaintiff bank engaged in settlement negotiations in good faith:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ cross motion for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff negotiated in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f). CPLR 3408 requires the parties in a residential foreclosure action to attend settlement conferences at an early stage of the litigation, at which they must “negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution” … . … [T]he circumstances surrounding its servicer’s handling of the first two loan modification applications are “relevant in the overall context of the parties’ relationship and the negotiations between them,” and thus, are relevant to the good faith inquiry … . …[D]efendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff “engaged in dilatory conduct by making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided”… . Investors Bank v Brooks, 2022 NY Slip Op 07224, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Defendants submitted evidence the bank in this foreclosure action did not engage in settlement negotiations pursuant to CPLR 3408 in good faith. Supreme Court should have held a hearing.

 

,

THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the calculations in the referee’s report were not supported by the relevant business records and the report, therefore, should not have been confirmed:

… [T]he affidavit of Tiffany Bluford, an employee of the plaintiff’s servicing agent, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, “constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records [she] purportedly relied upon in making [her] calculations” … . Moreover, the affidavit of Andrea Kruse, another employee of the plaintiff’s servicing agent, did not contain any averment as to the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan. Thus, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Delgado, 2022 NY Slip Op 07223, Second Dept 12-21-22

Similar issue and result in Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Helal, 2022 NY Slip Op 07259, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the calculations in the referee’s report are not supported by the submission of the relevant business records, the report is based on hearsay and should not be confirmed.

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Summer Young, a vice president of the plaintiff’s purported loan servicer. The affidavit was based upon Young’s review of her employer’s records, which were attached thereto. Young did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, and her affidavit did not contain proof of the standard office mailing procedure at the time the RPAPL 1304 notice allegedly was sent … . Nor did the annexed records demonstrate, prima facie, that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed … . Because the plaintiff “failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304,” and therefore failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law …  The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the notice of default requirement of the mortgage agreement … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Michalczyk, 2022 NY Slip Op 07222, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: the bank in this foreclosure action did not present sufficient evidence of compliance with the notice and mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment (after a non-jury trial) of foreclosure and sale, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1303:

RPAPL 1303 requires that a notice titled “Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure” be delivered to the mortgagor along with the summons and complaint in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one- to four-family dwellings … . “The statute mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type” … . “Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and noncompliance mandates dismissal of the complaint” … . The foreclosing party bears the burden of establishing compliance with RPAPL 1303 … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence at trial establishing that it complied with the specific requirements of RPAPL 1303, or that it delivered such notice to Nodumehlezi [defendant] at all. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court’s reliance, in a posttrial decision, on documents that had been previously e-filed to establish the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1303 was improper, since Nodumehlezi had no opportunity to rebut the previously filed affidavit of service and the related documents … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Nodumehlezi, 2022 NY Slip Op 07212, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Here there was a non-jury trial and plaintiff did not prove compliance with RPAPL 1303. The judgment of foreclosure and sale was reversed.

 

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