You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Simonsen) in this foreclosure action was never given notice to appoint new counsel after his attorney (Sirianni) was suspended and withdrew from the case. Even though, in granting the Sirianni’s motion to withdraw, the court directed defendant to retain new counsel or continue pro se, defendant was never provided with the notice required by CPLR 321(c). Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order should have been granted:

CPLR 321(c) provides, inter alia, that “[i]f an attorney dies, becomes physically or mentally incapacitated, or is removed, suspended or otherwise becomes disabled at any time before judgment, no further proceeding shall be taken in the action against the party for whom he [or she] appeared, without leave of the court, until thirty days after notice to appoint another attorney has been served upon that party.” “[D]uring the stay imposed by CPLR 321(c), no proceedings against the party will have any adverse effect” … , and “[o]rders or judgments that are rendered in violation of the stay provisions of CPLR 321(c) must be vacated” … . “It lies within the power of the other side to bring the stay to an end by serving a notice on the affected party to appoint new counsel within 30 days” … . The protections of CPLR 321(c) can be waived where the party elects to proceed pro se … . …

This action was automatically stayed by operation of CPLR 321(c) on … the effective date of Sirianni’s suspension from the practice of law. At no point was Simonsen provided, pursuant to CPLR 321(c), with the required notice to appoint another attorney, either by the court or opposing counsel. Moreover, the withdrawal order, which granted Sirianni’s motion pursuant to CPLR 321(b)(2) for leave to withdraw as counsel for Simonsen, had no practical effect as to whether the notice provision of CPLR 321(c) applied to this case … . … [T]he withdrawal order failed to direct service of a notice to appoint another attorney upon Simonsen, and there is no evidence in the record that Simonsen was ever served with a copy of the withdrawal order … . The record is also devoid of any evidence that … Simonsen waived the protections of CPLR 321(c) by electing to proceed pro se. Therefore, the automatic stay was not lifted until Simonsen moved, in effect, to vacate the summary judgment order … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Simonsen, 2022 NY Slip Op 05156, Second Dept 9-14-22

Practice Point: As soon as defendant’s attorney was suspended, the foreclosure action was stayed. Even though the court, in its order granting the attorney’s motion to withdraw, directed defendant to retain new counsel or go ahead pro se, defendant was never given notice to appoint another attorney required by CPLR 321. Therefore the stay was not lifted and defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order should have been granted.

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL 1304 WHICH REQUIRES THAT NOTHING ELSE BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not comply with the “separate envelope” for the notice of foreclosure required by RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it failed to show its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304(2). The “separate envelope” mandate of RPAPL 1304(2) provides that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice.” The copies of the 90-day notice submitted by the plaintiff included additional notices not contemplated by RPAPL 1304(2). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notice was “‘served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice'” …. it failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 ,,, , Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Ghosh, 2022 NY Slip Op 05076, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: If the bank includes other information in the envelope containing the notice of foreclosure, the bank has not complied with RPAPL 1304 and is not entitled to summary judgment.

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s proof of mailing of the foreclosure notice first submitted in reply should not have been considered, and plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he affidavits that the plaintiff appended to its moving papers failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by first-class mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304. While the plaintiff submitted an additional affidavit in reply, with proof of first-class mailing attached, this evidence should not have been considered in the determination of whether the plaintiff met its prima facie burden, as the issue which the new evidence was intended to address was not an issue raised for the first time in the defendants’ opposition, and the defendants were not afforded an opportunity to submit a surreply in response to the plaintiff’s newly submitted evidence in reply … . …

[Re; standing:] …[T]he plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the 2003 note and 2004 note, which together constituted the consolidated note, and each note was accompanied by an undated purported allonge endorsed to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the purported allonges, each of which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the corresponding note, was “so firmly affixed” to the corresponding note “as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2022 NY Slip Op 05110, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Evidence of compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 first submitted in reply should not have been considered.

Practice Point: The bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action.

 

, , ,

ONCE PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY STIPULATION, THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT COULD BE AMENDED TO SEEK RECOVERY ON THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff, after its foreclosure action was discontinued, could amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note:

“‘RPAPL 1301(3) . . . prohibits a party from commencing an action at law to recover any part of the mortgage debt while the foreclosure proceeding is pending or has not reached final judgment, without leave of the court in which the foreclosure action was brought'” ( … see RPAPL 1301[3]). Conversely, “‘where a foreclosure action is no longer pending and did not result in a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff is not precluded from commencing a separate action without leave of the court'” … .

Here, pursuant to the so-ordered stipulation and the plaintiff’s release of the mortgage, the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was, in effect, discontinued, without the entry of any judgment in the plaintiff’s favor … . Since the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was no longer pending, the plaintiff was not precluded from seeking to recover on the note by RPAPL 1301(3), “‘a statute which must be strictly construed'” … .

Furthermore, “there is no reason the plaintiff could not seek such relief by seeking leave to amend its complaint, rather than by commencing a new action” … . Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. v Zaltsman, 2022 NY Slip Op 05107, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here the foreclosure action was discontinued and plaintiff was allowed to amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note.

 

,

AN ACTION FOR “STRICT FORECLOSURE” PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1352 ALLOWS THE PURCHASER OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY TO EXTINGUISH ANY POTENTIAL CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY BY A NECESSARY PARTY NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department explained that an action for “strict foreclosure” pursuant to RPAPL 1352 is properly brought by the purchaser of foreclosed property to extinguish any claim to the property by a necessary party who not named in the foreclosure action:

Where, as here, a necessary party was omitted from a foreclosure action, the purchaser of the foreclosed property may commence a strict foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1352 … . “RPAPL 1352 permits a strict foreclosure action against a person not named in the original foreclosure action, who has either a right of redemption to the subject property or a right to foreclose a subordinate mortgage or other lien” … . The statute authorizes the court to issue a judgment that fixes a time period within which any such person must act to redeem or begin a foreclosure action. If the person fails to redeem the property or commence a foreclosure action within the time period fixed by the court, such person “shall be excluded from claiming any title or interest in such property and all title or interest of such person . . . or the right to foreclose a subordinate mortgage or other lien against such property shall thereby be extinguished and terminated” … . “Since RPAPL 1352 operates to dispose of the encumbrances of those whose interests were junior at the time of the original foreclosure but who were not joined as parties to that action, a judgment of strict foreclosure cures a defect in the judgment or sale under the first foreclosure” … . 71-21 Loubet, LLC v Bank of Am., N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 05012, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to RPAPL 1352, the purchaser of foreclosed property can extinguish any potential claim to the property by a necessary party not included in the original foreclosure proceedings.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS-CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action based upon plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for judgment of foreclosure by a specified date:

… [A] status conference order was entered … which … directed the plaintiff to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by December 20, 2017, and warned that “failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” The plaintiff failed to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by the status conference order. … [T]he Supreme Court, … sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. …

“‘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 of the status conference order was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Stuart, 2022 NY Slip Op 05055, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Generally, appellate courts will reverse a “sua sponte” dismissal of a complaint.

 

, ,

THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter sent by the bank to the borrower in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt and therefore did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations:

… [A] ” ‘letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, . . . does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause'” …  “The determinative question is not what the noteholder intended or the borrower perceived, but whether the contractual election was effectively invoked” … . Here, a letter sent to the defendants … , did not effectively accelerate the mortgage debt, as this letter merely discussed acceleration as a possible future event … . HSBC Bank USA v Pantel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04954, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A letter from the bank to the borrower which discussed the acceleration of the mortgage debt but did not indicate the debt was in fact accelerated did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations on the foreclosure action. The foreclosure action was not, therefore, time-barred.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the defect was not cured by an affidavit submitted in reply:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Kolette Modlin, an authorized officer of Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Caliber), the loan servicer for the plaintiff’s successor in interest. Modlin stated that she had reviewed the plaintiff’s business records, which had been verified for accuracy, incorporated into Caliber’s records, and relied upon by Caliber in the ordinary course of its business, and determined that 90-day notices were mailed by first-class and certified mail to the defendant at the mortgaged premises. The plaintiff also submitted copies of the 90-day notices that were allegedly sent to the defendant. However, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents establishing that the notices were actually mailed … . Moreover, although Modlin attested that she had personal knowledge of Caliber’s records, and that those records included the plaintiff’s records, Modlin did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the plaintiff, which was the entity that allegedly sent the 90-day notices to the defendant … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, although it submitted with its reply papers a second affidavit from Modlin, along with documentary evidence in the form of a letter log purportedly establishing the mailing of the 90-day notices, the plaintiff could not, under the circumstances, rely on the second affidavit to correct deficiencies inherent in the original one … . Ditech Fin., LLC v Cummings, 2022 NY Slip Op 04949, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff bank did not submit the records proving the notice of foreclosure was properly mailed and the affiant did not demonstrate familiarity with the mailing procedures used by the party which mailed the notice. The defects were not cured by a second affidavit submitted in reply. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because issue had not been joined:

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met, including that issue has been joined in the action” … .. Here, dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 was improper, since none of the defendants had interposed an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined … . Similarly, under the circumstances of this case, 22 NYCRR 202.27 did not provide a basis for dismissal of the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Frederic, 2022 NY Slip Op 04999, Second Dept 6-17-22

Practice Point: Where issue has not been joined the action cannot be dismissed for neglect to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216.

 

, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove compliance with the mailing requirements for mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice and the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint:

… [P]laintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the required RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by first-class mail. In an affidavit in support of its motion, Joanna M. Gloria, the plaintiff’s vice president of loan documentation, neither attested that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, nor did she present proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed. “‘[T]he mere assertion that the notice was mailed, supported by someone with no personal knowledge of the mailing, in the absence of proof of office practices to ensure that the item was properly mailed, does not give rise to the presumption of receipt'” … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint. “A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . No extraordinary circumstances were present in this case, as the “failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not jurisdictional” … , the defendant did not present any proof as to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and did not cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cascarano, 2022 NY Slip Op 04998, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The bank did not prove the notice of foreclosure was properly mailed, requiring denial of the bank’s motion for summary judgment. But the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure complaint.

 

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