You are here: / Foreclosure
,

TO AVOID DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) THE PLAINTIFF NEED ONLY TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND NEED NOT OBTAIN A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR; ANY DELAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD ARE IRRELEVANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed because plaintiff bank took steps to procure a default judgment within one year of the default. Any subsequent delays were irrelevant:

… [A]pproximately two months after the defendant’s default, the plaintiff moved for an order of reference. The fact that the Supreme Court later “marked off the calendar” the motion was irrelevant for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) because the plaintiff was only required to “take proceedings for the entry of judgment” within the one-year time frame, and not actually obtain the judgment … . “[I]t is enough that the plaintiff timely takes the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference to establish that it initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c)” … . … [T]he plaintiff was not required to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c) … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Khalil, 2022 NY Slip Op 04898, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: To avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) a plaintiff need only take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within one year of the default and need not obtain a default judgment within a year; any delays after the one-year period are irrelevant.

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED INCLUDE REFERENCED DOCUMENTS WITH ITS MOTION PAPERS AND THEREBY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT OR PLAINTIFF’S STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not establish defendants’ default or plaintiff’s standing in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … the affidavit of Christy Vieau, a document execution associate for the plaintiff, who, based upon her review of business records, attested to [defendant’s]  default in payment. While Vieau made the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures (see CPLR 4518[a]), she did not identify the records she relied upon, and did not attach them to her affidavit … . Thus, her assertions as to the contents of these records were inadmissible … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, its standing to commence the action. … “A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note, either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action with the filing of the complaint” … . A plaintiff may establish its standing by “demonstrating that the note was in its possession prior to the commencement of the action, as evidenced by its attachment of the endorsed note to the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced” … . Here, the plaintiff contends that it established standing by annexing a copy of the original note, endorsed to it, to the complaint. However, there is no copy of an endorsed note attached to the complaint. Rather, the copy of the note attached to the complaint states that it is an electronic document with an electronic transfer history, a fact wholly unaddressed by the plaintiff … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Koznitz I, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04813, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Many foreclosure summary judgment awards are reversed because the bank did not attached the documents referenced in its papers. Here the documents supporting defendants’ alleged default and the bank’s standing were missing and summary judgment was reversed.

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (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 submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly served the defendants. Instead, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Carlos Bernal, an authorized representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicing company. Although Bernal averred to have personal knowledge of the company’s record keeping systems, he did not purport to be familiar with the office procedure for mailing notices once they have been generated, and, therefore, he did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, the unsigned certified mail receipts, bearing no postmark from the United States Postal Service, do not prove that the notices were actually mailed … , and, in any event, the plaintiff produced no evidence that the notices were mailed by regular first-class mail … . 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… . Pennymac Corp. v Levy, 2022 NY Slip Op 04732, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: The bank in a foreclosure action must demonstrate strict compliance with the requirements for mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice. Failure to demonstrate strict compliance with the mailing requirements with admissible evidence precludes summary judgment.

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED THE MORTGAGE DEBT, STARTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANEW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was commenced after the statute of limitations had run. The bank claimed the defendant acknowledged the debt in a loan modification agreement, starting the statute of limitations anew. But the bank did not present evidence of the agreement in admissible form:

The plaintiff argues that the defendant entered into a loan modification agreement, which constituted an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt under General Obligations Law § 17-101 sufficient to reset the statute of limitations to commence a future foreclosure action on the mortgage. “General Obligations Law § 17-101 effectively revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt” … . “To constitute a valid acknowledgment, a ‘writing must be signed and recognize an existing debt and must contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it'” … . “In order to demonstrate that the statute of limitations has been renewed by a partial payment, it must be shown that the payment was accompanied by circumstances amounting to an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder” … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Paniagua, 2022 NY Slip Op 04708, Second Dept 7-27-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff bank did not demonstrate defendant acknowledged the mortgage debt in a loan modification agreement (thereby re-starting the statute of limitation for a foreclosure action). The evidence of the debt-acknowledgment presented by the bank did not meet the requirements of General Obligations Law 17-101. Therefore the statute of limitations was not revived. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint as untimely should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 WHICH REQUIRES THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO USE SPECIFIC TYPE SIZES AND A PAPER-COLOR DIFFERENT FROM THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff  bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with RPRL 1303, which requires that the notice of foreclosure use certain sizes of type and a different color paper:

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 (see RPAPL 1303[1],[3] …). 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 (see RPAPL 1303[2]). Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of showing compliance with the statute … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v McCaffrey, 2022 NY Slip Op 04619, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, the bank’s strict compliance with the notice requirements in the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) is a condition precedent for the action. Here the bank did not demonstrate that the notice of foreclosure complied with RPAPL 1303 which requires certain type sizes and a paper-color different from that of the summons and complaint. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

The affidavits of Daphne Proctor, Theresa Robertson, and April Martin, all of whom were document execution specialists employed by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), the plaintiff’s loan servicer, were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Proctor, Robertson, and Martin attested that they were familiar with Nationstar’s records and record-keeping practices, but they failed to attest that they personally mailed the notices or that they were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Nationstar. Moreover, Martin attested that the plaintiff mailed the notices, but neither she nor Proctor or Robertson attested that they were familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures. Therefore, they failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . The plaintiff also failed to submit any domestic return receipts or other documentation from the United States Postal Service proving the certified and first-class mailing … . The presence of numbered bar codes on the envelopes and the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp. v Salvador, 2022 NY Slip Op 04618, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: These foreclosure summary-judgment reversals based on the bank’s failure to  submit sufficient proof of the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure to the defendants just keep coming, week after week, year after year.

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The business records upon which the calculations in the referee’s report were based were not produced:

… ]T]he Supreme Court should have denied those branches of JPMorgan’s motion which were to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “[T]he referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records” … . Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Mahone, 2022 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the business records upon which the calculations in the referee’s report are based are not produced, Supreme Court should not confirm the report.

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ENTITLING THE DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action was not entitled to summary judgment on its motion to confirm the referee’s report and obtain a judgment of foreclosure. The defendants demonstrated the bank did not comply with the “separate envelope” rule in RPAPL 1304, which entitled to defendants to summary judgment dismissing the complaint:

… [T]he defendants established that the notices served by the plaintiff pursuant to RPAPL 1304 contained additional material in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice. The copies of the 90-day notice previously submitted by the plaintiff included additional notices not contemplated by RPAPL 1304(2), to wit, a notice pertaining to the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy, a notice to those in military service, and a notice advising customers to beware of any organization that attempts to charge a fee for housing counseling or modification of a delinquent loan … . Since the RPAPL 1304 notice was not “‘served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice'” … , the plaintiff did not strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Dedvukaj, 2022 NY Slip Op 04541, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: If the defendants demonstrate the bank in a foreclosure action did not comply with the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304 (by including other information in the envelope containing the notice of foreclosure), the defendants will be granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, AS WELL AS THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE MORTGAGE (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 and the mortgage:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed to each defendant by certified and first-class mail. The affidavit submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion does not contain an attestation that the affiant had personal knowledge of the purported mailings nor does the affiant attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendants on behalf of the loan servicer … . …

… [P]laintiff’s submission also failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly sent to the defendants contained the requisite list of five housing counseling agencies serving the region in which the subject property is located … . …

… [P]laintiff further failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were sent by the “lender, assignee, or loan servicer” as required by the statute … . … [T]he RPAPL notices were allegedly sent on August 7, 2014, by the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., on behalf of Ocwen Financial, the plaintiff’s loan servicer. However, the limited power of attorney authorizing Ocwen Financial to act on behalf of the plaintiff, which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, states that it was executed on and effective as of September 17, 2014.  …

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with a condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, requiring the lender to send a notice of default prior to the commencement of the action. The plaintiff’s submission failed to show that the required notice was sent to the defendants by first-class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pariser, 2022 NY Slip Op 04534, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Yet again, summary judgment in favor of the bank in a foreclosure proceeding is reversed because the bank did not prove strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage. Reversals on these grounds have appeared every week for at least five years, maybe more.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not prove the RPAPL 1304 was properly mailed to the defendants:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff relied on copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly mailed, purported domestic return receipts, and an affidavit of Catherine Rogers, a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc., the plaintiff’s purported servicer. However, the domestic return receipts were unsigned and undated, and there was no other indication that the certified or first class mailings were accepted by the post office for mailing. Rogers also did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing or of Seterus, Inc.’s standard office procedure designed to ensure that the notices were mailed. Thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima, facie, that it complied with the notice of default requirement of the mortgage agreement … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Young, 2022 NY Slip Op 04292, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with and compliance must be proven in the bank’s summary judgment motion papers. Without proof of strict compliance, the motion must be denied.

 

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