You are here: / Foreclosure
,

ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN 2009 WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED, IT WAS NEVER ABANDONED PURSANT TO CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TRIGGERED AND THE MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 ACTION TO THE CALENDAR IN 2018, AFTER THE SECOND (2015) FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the first foreclosure action (commenced in 2009), which was “administratively dismissed,” was not abandoned because the criteria in CPLR 3216 were not met. Therefore, the administrative dismissal did not trigger the statute of limitations and the motion to restore that action to the calendar (after the second foreclosure action commenced 2015 was dismissed as time-barred) should have been granted:

… [T]he conditional order of dismissal, which, in effect, served as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the Supreme Court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute (see id. § 3216[b][3] …). * * *

We reject the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff effectively abandoned the instant action by commencing the 2015 action. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff was not required to move to restore the instant action to the calendar within any specified time frame … . “[A] motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate an order is not subject to any specific time limitation” … . The marking-off procedures of CPLR 3404 do not apply to pre-note of issue actions such as this one … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Ali, 2022 NY Slip Op 00838, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE THE LACK OF JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY PARTICIPATING IN THE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action did not waive the lack of jurisdiction defense and demonstrated entitlement to a hearing on whether she was properly served:

… [B]y participating in the mandatory settlement foreclosure conference and subsequently contacting the plaintiff for settlement purposes, the defendant did not demonstrate a clear intent to participate in the lawsuit on the merits, and therefore she did not formally or informally appear in the action … . …

… [D]efendant sufficiently rebutted the presumption of proper service. The defendant submitted her own sufficiently factually detailed sworn affidavit in which she, inter alia, denied receipt of service, denied residing at the subject address at the time service allegedly was made, and averred that she had not lived there since September 2011 and that she had moved to Georgia in November 2013. Under these circumstances, a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) was required … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Stroman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00869, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action:

“Among other things, a plaintiff can establish a default by submission of an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or other evidence in admissible form”… . Although Smith [plaintiff’s vice president] averred that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, Smith’s purported knowledge of the alleged default was based upon her review of unidentified business records, which she failed to attach to her affidavit … . Thus, Smith’s assertions regarding the defendants’ alleged default constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gross, 2022 NY Slip Op 00902, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 WAS ACTUALLY MAILED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient. Therefore plaintiff in this foreclosure action was not entitled to summary judgment:

Since HSBC failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, it failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Cutaj, 2022 NY Slip Op 00858, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issues and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00896, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Davidson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00901, Second Dept 2-9-22 which also held the bank’s failure to comply with the “one envelope” rule for the RPAPL 1304 notice can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

, ,

THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INLUDE A LIST OF FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES SERVING THE COUNTY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 required that the notice of foreclosure include a list of five housing counseling agencies serving the county were the property is located:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, as it failed to demonstrate that the 90-day notices it sent to the defendants contained the requisite list of five housing counseling agencies serving the county in which the subject property is located … . In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304, annexed to which was a list of five agencies. Four of the agencies were located in Queens, and one of the agencies, Hispanic Brotherhood of Rockville Centre, Inc., was located in Nassau County. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that all five of the agencies served Queens County. U.S. Bank N.A. v Gordon, 2022 NY Slip Op 00898, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v McMahon, 2022 NY Slip Op 00903, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, , , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove standing to bring the action and compliance with the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

… [T}he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendant prior to the commencement of this action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, although Victoria Wolff, an assistant secretary for the plaintiff, stated in an affidavit that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, she did not aver that she had mailed the notices herself or otherwise claim to have personal knowledge of the mailing … . Raymond James Bank, NA v Guzzetti, 2022 NY Slip Op 00888, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in the foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice and “one envelope” requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate … that it strictly complied with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Kyle Lucas, a senior loan analyst employed by the plaintiff, did not make the requisite showing that Lucas was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and “therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish that it complied with the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). “[I]nclusion of any material in the separate envelope sent to the borrower under RPAPL 1304 that is not expressly delineated in these provisions constitutes a violation of the separate envelope requirement of RPAPL 1304(2)” … . … [T]he plaintiff acknowledged that the envelope … , which contained the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304, also included other information in two notices pertaining to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and bankruptcy. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Sirianni, 2022 NY Slip Op 00677, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLD BY DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT ADDRESS; BUT, IN FACT, DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THAT ADDRESS; SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, in a matter of first impression, determined the service of process in this foreclosure action was invalid. A relative of a defendant (daughter) told the process service that the address where service was made was proper, but, in fact, the defendant did not reside at that address:

This appeal presents a simple question that has not previously arisen: whether an affirmative misrepresentation by a relative of a defendant at a residential address that the address is proper, which is relied upon by a process server, may establish that service was valid, if evidence establishes that the address is not, in fact, the defendant’s actual dwelling place or usual place of abode. We hold that, under the circumstances of this action, service of process upon the defendant at an address that was not actually his dwelling place or usual place of abode was defective, notwithstanding information provided to the process server at the doorstep. * * *

For a defendant to be estopped from raising a claim of defective service, the conduct misleading the process server must be the defendant’s conduct, as distinguished from conduct of a third party … . Everbank v Kelly, 2022 NY Slip Op 00651, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE WAS THE NOTE SHE SIGNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the bank had standing to foreclosure by producing a note that was different from the note submitted by the bank to demonstrate standing:

… [T]he defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had produced the unpaid note and had standing to commence the action, by submitting, among other things, a copy of another version of the note, purportedly produced by the plaintiff in this litigation, bearing a different version of the defendant’s purported signature and initials than the note relied upon by the plaintiff in support of its motion. In an affidavit submitted in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendant averred that she only signed one copy of the note at closing, and denied that any of the copies of the note produced by the plaintiff were the note she signed … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00411, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND 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 defendant’s default and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304:

… [I]n attempting to establish the defendant’s default in payment, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jessica Fernandez, an assistant vice president of Bayview, the plaintiff’s assignee. * * * … [T]he payment history was a record made by Chase, not Bayview. … Fernandez did not attest that she was personally familiar with Chase’s record-keeping practices and procedures …  or that records provided by Chase were incorporated into Bayview’s records and routinely relied upon by Bayview in its own business … . …Fernandez failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the payment history and her assertions based on that record were inadmissible … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304 provides that, “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower” … . “The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower” … . …

In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted a copy of a 90-day notice from the plaintiff, addressed to the defendant at the premises address. … [T]he notice … does not include the list of at least five housing agencies that served the region where the defendant resided … . … [T]he plaintiff failed to submit proof of the actual mailing of the notice, 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 … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Deblinger, 2022 NY Slip Op 00410, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

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