You are here: / Foreclosure
, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provision of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he record does not reflect that a copy of the endorsed note was attached to the summons and complaint when the action was commenced … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish its status as the holder of the note at the time of commencement of the action … . * * *

The plaintiff failed to establish … it complied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, which required that it provide the defendant with a notice of default prior to demanding payment of the loan in full. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not establish that a notice of default was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the defendant’s “notice address” if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . [Plaintiff] failed to provide proof of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . For the same reason, the plaintiff failed to establish … it sent the defendant the required notice under RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Crosby, 2022 NY Slip Op 00402, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof surrounding the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice was insufficient:

… “[T]he plaintiff failed to provide evidence 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” … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Leitman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00397, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

No evidence that the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed by certified mail to the defendant at the subject property was provided, and the affidavit of a document control officer of the plaintiff’s loan servicer submitted by the plaintiff failed to describe the procedures in place designed to ensure that RPAPL 1304 notices are properly addressed and mailed by both certified and first-class mail … . Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of actual mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice by certified mail to the defendant at the subject property, “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 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Sae Young Min, 2022 NY Slip Op 00393, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , ,

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SIGNATURES ON THE NOTE AND DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS OF FACT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted. Slightly different signatures on the note and defendants’ denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1304 notice did not raise questions of fact:

… [U]nder the circumstances of this case, the fact that the plaintiff submitted a copy of the consolidated note that contained slightly different signatures of the defendants than the copy appended to the CEMA [consolidation, extension, and modification agreement], did not provide a sufficient basis to deny the plaintiff’s motion … . The defendants do not dispute that they signed the consolidated notes, including the one under which the plaintiff wished to proceed, nor do they claim that there were any differences in the terms of the notes … . Furthermore, the defendants’ mere denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1304 notices was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact warranting denial of the motion … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Theagene, 2022 NY Slip Op 00465, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (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:

Although the envelope has “Wells Fargo Home Mortgage” printed on it, there is no visible sender address. The envelope has the name “Shields” [defendant] hand-written in the top right corner. The envelope is further marked “return to sender illegible unable to forward” by the United States Post Office. The plaintiff also provided a copy of a certified mail return receipt card addressed to both of the defendants at the subject property’s address. This card is neither signed by a recipient nor postmarked. In addition, the plaintiff provided a certified manifest demonstrating proof of filing pursuant to RPAPL 1306, which only refers to a purported mailing to Shields. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether notices were sent to both defendants in compliance with RPAPL 1304, and whether the notices were received. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Shields, 2022 NY Slip Op 00462, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED (HEARSAY) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed in this foreclosure action because the computations in the report were based on business records which were not produced:

… “[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” … . We therefore reverse the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for a new report computing the amount due, to be followed by further proceedings in accordance with CPLR 4403 and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Dhanani, 2022 NY Slip Op 00460, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK POSSESSED THE CORRECT VERSION OF THE NOTE, AND, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action raised a question of fact whether the bank possessed the relevant note, and therefore had standing, when the action was commenced:

“Pursuant to article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a note can be endorsed, or signed over, to a new owner” … . A note can also be endorsed in blank, naming no specific payee, which makes it a bearer instrument, so that any party that possesses it has the legal authority to enforce it (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[2] …). …

The version of the note that contained the special endorsement by GreenPoint to GMAC …, which was submitted in the 2008 foreclosure action, was not consistent with the endorsement in blank by GreenPoint. If the note was specially endorsed to GMAC, it would subsequently had to have been specially endorsed to the plaintiff or endorsed in blank by GMAC in order for the plaintiff to enforce it (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[1] … ). Thus, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff possessed the legal authority to enforce the note at the time this action was commenced … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Rozo-Castellanos, 2022 NY Slip Op 00457, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure actions:

Where, as here, the plaintiff’s standing has been placed in issue by the defendant’s answer, the plaintiff must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing … . “[A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through proof that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of commencement of the action” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference, as the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. 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) … . The affidavit of the plaintiff’s employee and the copy of the note attached thereto which were submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment did not clarify whether the allonge was firmly affixed to the note … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Calomarde, 2022 NY Slip Op 00428, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED DURING THE BANK’S UNEXPLAINED DELAYS IN PROCURING AND ENTERING AN ORDER OF REFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the accrual of interest should have been tolled during the bank’s unexplained delays in procuring and entering an order or reference:

Supreme Court properly found that the nearly 17-month delay in the plaintiff’s service of the notice of entry of the order of reference entered April 30, 2014, was excessive … . However, it improvidently exercised its discretion in tolling the accrual of interest for only one year, as it should have been tolled for the entire period from April 30, 2014, through September 9, 2015. In addition, the court should have also tolled the accrual of interest for the time periods in which the plaintiff made two motions for an order of reference after its initial motion for an order of reference was denied for administrative reasons … . The tolling of the accrual of interest during these time periods is not … penalizing the plaintiff for losing its motions, but is instead a response to the plaintiff’s unexplained delay in prosecuting the action by failing to promptly move for relief after the denial of its first and second motions. … [A]fter the plaintiff’s first motion for an order of reference was denied in August 2011, it failed to move again until February 2013. After the second motion was denied in September 2013, the plaintiff did not make its third motion until February 2014. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Ould-Khattri, 2022 NY Slip Op 00167, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

,

THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE REPORT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report was inadmissible hearsay because the documents upon which the calculations were based were not produced:

The defendant correctly contends, however, that the referee’s calculation was not substantially supported by the record. Modlin’s [the loan servicer’s] affidavit, which was submitted to the referee for the purpose of establishing the amount due on the mortgage loan, appeared to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the business records on which she relied, including the payment history for the loan, in making her calculations. Modlin averred that she was an authorized signatory of Caliber, U.S. Bank’s loan servicer and attorney-in-fact, that she had reviewed Caliber’s electronic records regarding the defendant’s account, and that she had “knowledge of how those electronic records [were] kept and maintained” … . Modlin further averred that the business records of any prior servicer had been “uploaded and boarded into [Caliber’s] computer records” and were “maintained in connection with the servicing of [the subject] loan”,,, , In addition, U.S. Bank Trust demonstrated Caliber’s authority to act on its behalf by submitting the limited power of attorney.

Nevertheless, computations based on the review of unproduced business records amount to inadmissible hearsay and lack probative value … . Here, U.S. Bank Trust did not submit to the referee copies of the business records upon which Modlin purportedly relied in computing the amount due on the mortgage loan. Consequently, the referee’s findings in that respect were not substantially supported by the record … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Bank of Am., N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 00213, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

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