You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not not submit sufficient proof of compliance with the notice-of-default provisions of RPAPL 1304. Among other deficiencies, the documents necessary to prove the notice was mailed were not attached to the affidavit stating the mailing requirements were met:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Crystal Jean McClelland, a vice president of loan documentation for the plaintiff, stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened. The plaintiff failed to provide any documentation from the United States Post Office demonstrating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail. Further, while McClelland attested that she was familiar with the business records maintained by the plaintiff, had personal knowledge of the operation of and the circumstances surrounding the preparation, maintenance, distribution, and retrieval of records in the plaintiff’s record-keeping system, and had knowledge of how the plaintiff drafted, generated, triggered, sent, and stored letters in the servicing process, she did not present proof of a standard office mailing procedure by the plaintiff designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed. Since 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 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kowalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 05887, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Another example of what the banks get wrong when trying to prove strict compliance with the foreclosure notice-of-default provisions of RPAPL 1304 at the summary judgment stage.

 

,

IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER IN THE MORTGAGE (WHICH SHE SIGNED) BUT NOT IN THE NOTE; THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE READ AS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A “SURVIVING BORROWER” THEREBY PRECLUDING FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant raised a question of fact in this reverse-mortgage foreclosure action. The mortgage allowed foreclosure upon the death of a borrower (Goldman) as long as the property is not occupied by a “surviving borrower.” Although the defendant was not named as a borrower in the note, she was names as a borrower in the mortgage, which she signed:

… [T]he defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she was a “surviving Borrower” under the note and mortgage, which would preclude the plaintiff from requiring payment in full upon Goldman’s death … . Although the defendant was not named as a borrower in the note, she signed the mortgage in which she was named as a borrower. “Generally, the rule is that separate contracts relating to the same subject matter and executed simultaneously by the same parties may be construed as one agreement” … . Here, the note and mortgage, construed together, were ambiguous as to whether the defendant was intended to be a borrower … . Where, as here, contract language is “reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, . . . extrinsic or parol evidence may be . . . permitted to determine the parties’ intent as to the meaning of that language” …  Here, the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was a borrower under the subject loan. Although Goldman, and not the defendant, was named as the borrower on various documents, including the loan application, both Goldman and the defendant signed a copy of a Truth-in-Lending Act disclosure. Moreover, in her affidavit, the defendant averred that when she and Goldman applied for the reverse mortgage, they were “assured that when [Goldman] passed away, that I would get the house and that I could continue to live there.” Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Hoar, 2022 NY Slip Op 05853, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Here the mortgage and the note must be read as a single agreement. The fact that defendant was named in the mortgage, which she signed, but not named in the note, raised a question of fact whether she was a “surviving borrower,” precluding the reverse-mortgage foreclosure.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETER; A NEW HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ attorney’s request for an interpreter should have been granted. Defendant Rowshan claimed she was never served in this foreclosure action and she testified at the hearing on the validity of the service of process:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 217.1(a), “[i]n all civil . . . cases, when a court determines that a party . . . is unable to understand and communicate in English to the extent that he or she cannot meaningfully participate in the court proceedings, the clerk of the court or another designated administrative officer shall schedule an interpreter . . . from an approved list maintained by the Office of Court Administration.” “‘The determination whether a court-appointed interpreter is necessary lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to make the fact-intensive inquiries necessary to determine whether there exists a language barrier'” so as to require an interpreter … .

Here, the record reflects that Rowshan was unable to meaningfully participate in the hearing due to her limited capacity to understand and communicate in English … . In multiple instances throughout her testimony, Rowshan’s testimony was not responsive to the questions posed to her, Rowshan did not know the meaning of simple words, and she made confusing statements demonstrating her limitations in understanding English. * * *

Since the Supreme Court determined, after the hearing, that Rowshan’s testimony was lacking in credibility due to “contradictions, misstatements and inconsistencies,” the record reflects that the denial of the defendants’ application for an interpreter may have influenced the court’s determination. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Parvez, 2022 NY Slip Op 05683, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to grant defendants’ attorney’s request for an interpreter required reversal and a new hearing. The defendant’s testimony revealed her limited understanding of English and the court’s ruling was based upon a determination of her credibility.

 

,

AN ORDER DISMISSING AN ACTION DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE ACTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE CLERK; HERE, ALTHOUGH THE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY AN ORDER, ABSENT A JUDGMENT THE ACTION REMAINED VIABLE AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined: (1) an order dismissing an action does not terminate the action which can only be accomplished by a judgment; and (2) here, although the action had been dismissed, the action was still viable in the absence of a judgment and plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a receiver should have been considered on the merits:

… [A]n order of dismissal is not the same as a judgment under CPLR 5011. CPLR 5011 is routinely utilized by practitioners and courts without controversy, as its mechanics are well-understood and not particularly complicated. A judgment is a paper that reflects the resolution of an action or proceeding … . A judgment may be either interlocutory or final. It “shall refer to, and state the result of, the verdict or decision, or recite the default upon which it is based” (CPLR 5011 …). A judgment is entered by the clerk at the conclusion of an action or proceeding (see CPLR 5016[a]). An action is not actually concluded until a final judgment is entered … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rubin, 2022 NY Slip Op 05682, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: An order dismissing an action does not conclude the action. Only a final judgment entered by the clerk terminates an action. Here there was an order dismissing the action but no judgment had been entered. Therefore, plaintiff’s post-dismissal motion should have been considered on the merits.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank in this foreclosure action did not present sufficient proof of defendants’ default and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice-of-default requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment by submitting the affidavit of Brian Nwabaka, an employee of its loan servicer, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Bayview). Nwabaka averred that, based upon his review of unspecified business records, the defendants defaulted in making monthly payments in October 2008. However, Nwabaka did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the defendants’ alleged default in payment. Moreover, Nwabaka failed to identify which records he relied on to assert a default in payment, and the notice of default annexed to Nwabaka’s affidavit was insufficient to establish the alleged default in payment … .

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affidavits of Nwabaka and Rosalind Carroll, document coordinator for Bayview, each of whom averred that the 90-day notices were sent by certified and first-class mail. However, neither Nwabaka nor Carroll attached any documents showing proof of mailing by first-class mail, nor did they aver that they had personal knowledge of the purported mailings or were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bayview … . Although Nwabaka attested to his familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of Countrywide Home Loan, the prior loan servicer, he did not aver to familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of Bayview, which purportedly sent the 90-day notices. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Mannino, 2022 NY Slip Op 05675, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Yet again the affidavits offered by plaintiff-bank in a foreclosure action were not sufficient to demonstrate defendants’ default or plaintiff’s compliance with the notice-of-default requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the provision in the mortgage agreement requiring certain advisements in the notice of default. The affidavit purporting to demonstrate compliance did not have the notice of default attached. In addition, Supreme Court should not have denied defendant’s cross motion for a hearing on whether plaintiff bank met its obligation to negotiate in good faith (CPLR 3408):

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the provision in the mortgage agreement requiring the plaintiff to send to the defendant a notice of default containing certain advisements and setting forth a 30-day cure period. The affidavit of its employee, Lindsay Hodges, was insufficient for this purpose inasmuch as Hodges failed to attach business records upon which she relied—specifically, the notice of default itself—in averring that notice was provided in compliance with the mortgage agreement. … Hodges’s averment was therefore hearsay lacking in probative value … . …

Supreme Court improperly denied the defendant’s cross motion for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff met its obligation to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f). “The purpose of the good-faith requirement in CPLR 3408 is to ensure that both the plaintiff and the defendant are prepared to participate in a meaningful effort at the settlement conference to reach a resolution” … . To conclude that a party failed to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), a court must determine that “the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party’s conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution” … .

… [T]he defendant’s submissions in support of her cross motion raised a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to resolve the action through loan modification or other potential workout options … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Rose, 2022 NY Slip Op 05516, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Here the mortgage agreement required that the notice of default include certain information. The affidavit submitted to prove the contents of the notice of default was hearsay because the notice was not attached.

 

, ,

CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE AND VACATION OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR A COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501, NOT, AS HERE, BY A CROSS-MOTION; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s cross-motion to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) should not have been granted because that relief must be sought in an action or counterclaim, not by motion. The issue was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the cross motion which was pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage and vacate the notice of pendency, since relief pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) must be sought in an action or counterclaim and not by motion … . Although the plaintiff raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court … . U.S. Bank N.A. v O’Rourke, 2022 NY Slip Op 05558, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Cancellation and discharge of a mortgage and vacation of a notice of pendency pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) must be sought by an action or a counterclaim, not, as in this case, by a cross-motion. The issue may be raised for the first time on appeal because it is a matter of law and could not have been avoided had it been raised in Supreme Court.

 

,

THE POINT AT WHICH LEAVE OF COURT AND THE STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES IS REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a matter of first impression, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, in the context of a foreclosure action, determined the point at which leave of court and the stipulation of all parties is required to discontinue the action is the return date for the motion to confirm the referee’s report:

CPLR 3217(b) permits the discontinuance of an action by a party with leave of court or by a stipulation of the parties before the cause is submitted to the trier of fact for a determination of the facts; but once the cause has been submitted for a determination of the facts, a discontinuance may only be granted upon both leave of court and a stipulation of all parties appearing in the action. While the mechanics of the statute are clear when an action is tried before a judge or jury, no appellate case has yet addressed the question of when an action is considered “submitted to the court” under CPLR 3217(b) when the matter is referred to a referee to hear and report, and the report is thereafter subject to confirmation, rejection, or modification by the Supreme Court. We hold that the operative date for requiring both leave of court and for the parties to stipulate to the discontinuance is the return date of a motion to confirm, reject, or modify the assigned referee’s report, as that is the moment when the factual issues of a case are submitted to the court for the determinative deliberative process. * * *

We find, as a matter of first impression, that where an action is referred to a court attorney referee to hear and report, the time that is most akin to the submission of the case to the court or the jury for a determination of the facts is the return date of the motion to confirm the referee’s report. Prior to that time, the conclusion of the trial before the referee is not final as the referee, while setting forth his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law, has no authority to determine the matter … . Emigrant Bank v Solimano, 2022 NY Slip Op 05311, Second Dept 9-28-22

Practice Point: In a matter of first impression, the Second Department held that the point at which leave of court and the stipulation of all parties to discontinue a foreclosure action is the return date for the motion to confirm the referee’s report.

 

, ,

AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 and therefore should not have been awarded summary judgment:

… [A]lthough the plaintiff submitted a copy of the 90-day notice purportedly sent to the defendant by Green Tree [the loan servicer], it failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notice was actually mailed, either through an affidavit of mailing, other proof of mailing by the post office, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure. Instead, the plaintiff merely submitted an affidavit from a representative of its attorney-in-fact, averring that the 90-day notice was sent by Green Tree in accordance with RPAPL 1304. That conclusory, unsubstantiated averment, standing alone, was insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed to the defendant by first-class and certified mail … . Moreover, the affiant based his assertions upon his review of unspecified business records without attaching any such business records to his affidavit … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Fernando, 2022 NY Slip Op 05231, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, at the summary judgment  stage, proof the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304 cannot be demonstrated by an affidavit which refers to documents that are not attached.

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not attach the business records relied on to prove defendant’s default and did not lay a proper foundation for the records purporting to show compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the defendant’s default in payment under the note. In her affidavit, Wallace [employee of the loan servicer] stated that the defendant failed to make certain payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage, but she failed to identify the records that she relied upon and did not attach those records to her affidavit … .

… The plaintiff relied upon Wallace’s affidavit, in which she averred that the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent to the defendant by certified and first-class mail. Although Wallace averred that she had personal knowledge of [the loan servicer’s] record-keeping practices and procedures, the business records she relied upon and attached to the affidavit were created by other entities. Wallace did not aver that she had personal knowledge of those entities’ business practices and procedures, or otherwise provide a proper foundation for the admission of those records … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Zakarin, 2022 NY Slip Op 05229, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: To prove a defendant’s default in a foreclosure action, the documents relied upon must be attached to the papers.

Practice Point: A proper foundation must be laid for documents relied upon to prove compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 in a foreclosure actions. Here the documents were not created by the affiant.

 

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