You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK WAS INSUFFICIENT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action and Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion to amend the answer to assert lack of standing as a defense:

… [I]n support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted … a lost note affidavit of a representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, to which was annexed a copy of the consolidated note. However, the affidavit was insufficient to establish the facts preventing the production of the note … . …

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend her answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing … . Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025[b]). In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, a motion to amend should be granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .. “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine” … …. [T]he defendant did not waive the affirmative defense of lack of standing (see RPAPL 1302-a). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kreitzer. 2022 NY Slip Op 01441, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: The bank was unable to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action because the lost note affidavit was insufficient. Even a late motion to amend an answer should be granted if there is no prejudice to the plaintiff. Here the motion to add the lack of standing defense to the answer should have been granted.

 

,

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE; THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action were entitled to service of the notice of the foreclosure sale. Because the defendants were not served with the notice, their motion to vacate the foreclosure sale should have been granted:

“Parties to an action involving the sale of real property pursuant to a judgment, who have appeared in the action and have not waived service, are entitled to have served upon them, pursuant to CPLR 2103, all papers in the action, including a notice of sale” … , a court is authorized to set aside a judicial sale within one year thereafter, for failure to comply with the requirement as to notice, but only if a substantial right of a party was prejudiced by the defect.

Here, the defendants established that they were prejudiced by the lack of notice of the sale inasmuch as they were deprived of the opportunity to protect their interest in the subject property … . 38-12 Astoria Blvd., LLC v Ramos, 2022 NY Slip Op 01433, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: Defendants who have appeared in a foreclosure action are entitled to notice of the foreclosure sale. Here defendants were not served with the notice of sale. Their motion to vacate the foreclosure sale should have been granted.

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE FOR THE MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank violated the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 by including other documents in the envelope containing the notice of default in this foreclosure action:

RPAPL 1304(1) 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.” RPAPL 1304(2) states 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.”

Here, the inclusion of additional “Important Disclosures” regarding bankruptcy and rights for military personnel on page 7 of the 90-day notice violated RPAPL 1304(2), which requires strict compliance … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Salva, 2022 NY Slip Op 01290, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, ,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO SHOW THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action. The failure to attached the business records referred to in the affidavit purporting to demonstrate compliance rendered the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

Although the plaintiff submitted copies of the 90-day notices purportedly sent to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notices were actually mailed, through either an affidavit of service, other proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service, or evidence 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 assertion in an affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer that the 90-day notices were sent in accordance with RPAPL 1304 was insufficient to establish that the notices were actually mailed to Blackman by first-class and certified mail. The affiant based his assertions upon his review of records which were created by a third-party vendor, and as those business records were not incorporated into the servicer’s own electronic files, they were inadmissible hearsay … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Blackman, 2022 NY Slip Op 01289, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 BECAUSE ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal of this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of CPLR 3216 because issue was never joined. Therefore the action should not have been dismissed:

“‘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 (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). Here, the dismissal of the action pursuant to the conditional order of dismissal was improper, since none of the defendants had submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined … . Central Mtge. Co. v Ango, 2022 NY Slip Op 01286, Second Dept 3-2-22​

 

,

THE 2007 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THE INITIAL ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 2007 notice of default in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt. Also, the initial action was dismissed for lack of standing and, therefore did not accelerate the debt.  Therefore the action should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendant established that the mortgage was not accelerated. The language in the 2007 notice of default did not serve to accelerate the loan, as it was nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event which does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause … . Moreover, since the 2008 foreclosure action was dismissed on the ground that the defendant lacked standing, the commencement of that action as purported acceleration was a nullity, and the statute of limitations did not begin to run at the time of the purported acceleration … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint.  IPA Asset Mgt., LLC v Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2022 NY Slip Op 01151, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE BANK’S STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavits purporting to demonstrate the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action were not accompanied by the relevant documents and therefore constituted inadmissible hearsay:

… [I]n order to establish standing, the plaintiff submitted affidavits from two contract management coordinators of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, each of whom stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. However, neither affiant identified any particular document reviewed that pertained to the issue of standing, nor did they attach to their respective affidavits any admissible document to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action. The affidavits also failed to show that either affiant possessed personal knowledge of whether the plaintiff possessed the note at the time of the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its standing to commence this action. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Idarecis, 2022 NY Slip Op 01144, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-bank’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The conditional order of dismissal did not meet the requirements of CPLR 3216 and therefore did not dismiss the action as abandoned:

… [T]he conditional order of dismissal “was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice ‘will serve as a basis for a motion’ by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Moreover, there was no indication that the plaintiff’s counsel was present at the status conference at which the Supreme Court issued the conditional order of dismissal, nor was there evidence that the conditional order of dismissal was ever properly served upon the plaintiff … . In addition, notwithstanding the statement in the conditional order of dismissal that “more than one year ha[d] elapsed since the joinder of issue,” there is no dispute that issue was not joined … .. Accordingly, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal, and to restore the action to the active calendar…. . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Beckford, 2022 NY Slip Op 01143, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, ,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304, including compliance with the “one envelope” rule:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Moreover, in support of their cross motion, the defendants … demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff included additional material in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice, in violation of the separate mailing requirement of RPAPL 1304(2) … . US Bank N.A. v Kaplan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , ,

THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT’S DETERMINATION THE BANK HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the failure to identify and attach the documents demonstrating the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action rendered the bank’s affidavit inadmissible hearsay. The court noted that Supreme Court’s determination the bank had complied with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304 was the law of the case precluding reconsideration of the issue pursuant to defendants’ cross motion:

The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Richard L. Penno, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Based upon his review of Wells Fargo’s books and records concerning the defendants’ loan, Penno attested to the defendants’ default in payment. However, Penno did not identify the records he relied upon in order to attest to the defendants’ default and did not attach them to his affidavit … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . Thus, Penno’s assertions as to the contents of Wells Fargo’s servicing records were inadmissible … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge … . …

… [C]ontrary to the defendants’ … contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement. The plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement were both considered and decided in the plaintiff’s favor on its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, while it is true that a defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time … , the doctrine of law of the case precluded the court from reconsidering those issues on the defendants’ cross motion … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ramanababu, 2022 NY Slip Op 01199, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

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