You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

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

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action was deficient, and the failure to submit the business records referred to in the bank’s affidavit rendered the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Becky J. Layman, an officer of the plaintiff. Layman’s assertions that the plaintiff complied with the notice of default provision of the mortgage and that the plaintiff complied with the notice provision of RPAPL 1304 were insufficient, since she failed to provide proof of the actual mailings or attest to knowledge of the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures … . Layman’s affidavit was also insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant defaulted under the note and mortgage, since her purported knowledge was based upon review of unidentified business records which were not attached to her affidavit … . Thus, her assertions regarding the defendant’s default, without the business records upon which she relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 01198, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

,

THE PURPORTED STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THE PURPORTED NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE WERE INVALID; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT HAD BEEN REVOKED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined both the purported stipulation of discontinuance and the purported notice of discontinuance were invalid. Therefore the judge should not have determined the acceleration of the mortgage debt had been revoked:

…Supreme Court erred in discontinuing the action based upon a purported stipulation of discontinuance, and then interceding on the plaintiff’s behalf to declare the acceleration of the loan revoked. The stipulation was clearly ineffective as it was only signed by the attorney for the plaintiff (see CPLR 3217[a][2] …). Further, to the extent that the stipulation was construed as a notice of discontinuance, it was equally ineffective to discontinue the action, as it was not served upon the appellant (see CPLR 3217[a][1] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rini, 2022 NY Slip Op 01016, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient. The court noted that, under the facts, standing to contest the bank’s compliance with RPAPL 1304 was personal to each borrower, one borrower could not assert that defense on behalf of another borrower:

JPMorgan submitted an affidavit, entitled an “Affidavit of Mailing,” signed by James A. Ranaldi, an “Authorized Signer” employed by JPMorgan. Ranaldi, however, did not attest to personal knowledge of the actual mailings. Nor did he state that he had personal knowledge “of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Although Ranaldi asserted, based upon his review of business records associated with the subject loan, that “a ninety-day (90) pre-foreclosure notice dated 12/04/2009 was sent by regular first class and certified mail under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service addressed to [the defendant at the subject property],” “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted”… . The records attached to Ranaldi’s affidavit provided evidence that the 90-day notice was sent to the defendant by certified mail. But none of the documents, considered individually or together, including the copies of the notice letters themselves, provided any information as to whether the 90-day notice was sent to the defendant by regular first-class mail … . Without business records proving the matter asserted, Ranaldi’s “unsubstantiated and conclusory” statement, by itself, was insufficient to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed to the defendant by first-class mail … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Kutch, 2022 NY Slip Op 01066, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

,

THE AFFIDAVIT UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE AFFIANT AND THE CALCULATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE INFORMATION INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed. The affidavit submitted by the mortgage servicer was insufficient and the records upon which the calculations in the affidavit were based were not produced:

… [T]he referee’s report was not substantially supported by the record. The report was based in significant part on the affidavit of Elizabeth A. Ostermann, a vice president for Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC (hereinafter Carrington), the purported “servicer and attorney-in-fact” for the plaintiff. However, Ostermann did not set forth when Carrington began servicing the loan and did not provide a power of attorney appointing it as attorney-in-fact … . Moreover, Ostermann did not state that “she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures” at Carrington … .

Furthermore, computations based on the “review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … . Here, the plaintiff did not submit the business records upon which Ostermann purportedly relied in computing the total amount due on the mortgage. Trust v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 00845, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issue and result in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sharon, 2022 NY Slip Op 00852, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER TRIAL ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMPLAINT REINSTATED AND JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action properly laid a proper foundation at trial for the admission of documents making out a prima facie case. Therefore the action should not have been dismissed and a judgment in favor of plaintiff should have been entered. At trial plaintiff established standing to bring the action, the defendant’s default, and compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304. Bank of Am., N.A. v Bloom, 2022 NY Slip Op 00839, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

,

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

 

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