You are here: / Foreclosure
,

A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN APPEARANCE AND DOES NOT WAIVE THE LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DEFENSE; INFANT DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPLR 309; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the infant defendant’s (A.M.’s) cross-motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted:

The defendant James McGown purchased the subject property on January 25, 2006. On March 15, 2007, he executed a mortgage encumbering the subject property in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (… MERS) … . MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff. McGown failed to make a payment due under the terms of the mortgage … . … McGown executed a deed purportedly conveying the subject property to his daughter, the infant A.M., who at the time was less than one year old. * * *

… A.M. did not waive the defense of personal jurisdiction by cross-moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). “‘A defendant may waive the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss'” … . However, certain types of limited involvement in an action by a defendant do not waive jurisdictional defenses, including “cross-moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), as such a motion by a defendant ‘does not constitute an appearance in the action'” … . …

… [T]he process server attested that he served A.M. pursuant to CPLR 308(2) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the “housekeeper” at A.M.’s dwelling place and then completing the requisite mailing. … [A]lthough McGown was served individually, he was not served … as an individual and representative of A.M. … . Since neither of these methods of service complied with the requirements of CPLR 309, the present action was jurisdictionally defective as asserted against A.M. US Bank N.A. v McGown, 2021 NY Slip Op 06879, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

,

WHERE A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TERMINATED BY A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE WITH PREJUDICE, THE STIPULATION CANNOT BE VACATED BY A MOTION, A PLENARY ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate the stipulation terminating the foreclosure action should not have been granted:

The Supreme Court improperly granted Deutsche Bank’s motion to vacate the stipulations. The mortgage foreclosure action was terminated by the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice and Deutsche Bank could only vacate that stipulation by commencing a plenary action … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Goltz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06671, Second Dept 12-1-21

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S PROOF OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the bank’s proof that the RPAPL 1304 notice was properly mialed to the defendant was insufficient:

… [A]lthough Gonzales [an employee of plaintiff Wilmington’s loan servicer] stated in her affidavit that RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, Wilmington failed to attach any documents showing that the mailings actually happened … . Further, Gonzales did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, and did not describe any standard office procedure designed to ensure that notices are properly addressed and mailed … . Accordingly, Wilmington failed to establish, prima facie, compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Novis, 2021 NY Slip Op 06720, Second Dept 12-1-21

 

WHEN THE BALANCES OF FIRST MORTGAGES ARE INCREASED WITH SECOND MORTGAGE LOANS AND A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION, AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) IS ENTERED CONSOLIDATING THE MORTGAGES INTO SINGLE LIENS, THE FIRST NOTES AND MORTGAGES STILL EXIST; WHEN A MORTGAGE IS ERRONEOUSLY DISCHARGED WITHOUT A SATISFACTION OF THE DEBT, THE MORTGAGE MAY BE REINSTATED IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE ON THE ERRONEOUS DISCHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that where balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and a Consolidation, Extension, and Modification Agreement (CEMA) is entered consolidating the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist. And where, as here, there has been an erroneous discharge of mortgage without a satisfaction of the mortgage debt, the mortgage may be reinstated where there has been no detrimental reliance on erroneous discharge:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated … that MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc] erred in executing and filing the satisfaction of mortgage dated October 31, 2005, which certified that the first mortgage in the principal sum of $600,000 was paid. … [T]he satisfaction references the second mortgage, dated April 12, 2005, in the sum of $8,421.28, and acknowledges that the two mortgages were combined and consolidated to form a “single first lien.” Accordingly, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or support their contention that no mortgage existed upon which the plaintiff can foreclose. Bank of Am., N.A. v Schwartz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06602, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; NO FOUNDATION FOR THE SUBMITTED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated with admissible evidence:

… [I]n support of its motion Bayview [plaintiff, successor-in-interest to the original plaintiff, Bank of America (BoA)] submitted the affidavit of Nicole Currey, a supervisor for Bayview, who attached to her affidavit copies of various documents generated by nonparty Walz Group, Inc. (hereinafter Walz), to establish compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. However, Currey failed to address the nature of the relationship between Walz and BoA , and Bayview’s submissions were insufficient to establish a foundation for the admission of the business records relied upon by Bayview to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, Bayview failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with the 90-day notice requirement of RPAPL 1304 … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Evanson, 2021 NY Slip Op 06601, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME; HERE IT WAS RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the bank in this foreclosure action, noted that the failure to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 can be raised at any time. Here it was raised in opposition to the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavits of Armenia L. Harrell and La’Shana Farrow, both of whom are officers of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the servicing agent of the plaintiff, were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Both Harrell and Farrow attested that they were familiar with Wells Fargo’s records and record-keeping practices. Farrow averred, inter alia, that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notices. The record indicates that the 90-day notices appear to have been mailed by ASC (America’s Servicing Company). However, neither Harrell or Farrow attest that they personally mailed the notices or that they were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of ASC. Therefore, they failed establish proof of standard office practice and procedures designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to send individually addressed notices to each borrower; rather, the 90-day notices were jointly addressed to the [defendants]. U.S. Bank N.A. v Krakoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 06209, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OWED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE RELIED ON AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A BANK EMPLOYEE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELATED BUSINESS RECORDS; THE AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s computation of the amount owed in this foreclosure action was not supported by the record. The affidavit of the bank’s employee was based on business records which were not produced, rendering the affidavit hearsay:

Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to reject the referee’s report. The referee’s computations as to the amount due and owing to the plaintiff were not substantially supported by the record … . An affidavit of an assistant vice president of the plaintiff, which was submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion to establish the amount due and owing, constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the business records purportedly relied upon in making the calculations were not produced … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Barton, 2021 NY Slip Op 05939, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

THE COURT NEVER ENTERED AN ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; THEREFORE THE TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION NEVER STARTED TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the time for interposing an answer in this foreclosure action never started to run because the court never entered an order deciding defendant’s motion to dismiss:

The Supreme Court, however, erred in granting those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference. In the order … , the court held that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) in abeyance pending the framed-issue hearing, and the defendant therefore had until 10 days after service of notice of entry of the order deciding that branch of the motion to file an answer … . Since the court failed to issue an order deciding that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) prior to granting those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference, the defendant’s time to file an answer had not yet begun to run and the defendant therefore was not in default … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the referee’s report cannot be considered a determination that, in effect, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint … , as there is no evidence in the record that the parties consented to the reference, and the referee therefore lacked the authority to determine the issue of standing conclusively … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A.. v Sewell, 2021 NY Slip Op 05850, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

, , ,

PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (B), WHEN DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITLED TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for a finding whether defendants in this foreclosure action are eligible for assigned counsel, determined the judge did not comply with CPLR 3408 (b) at the settlement conference:

[CPLR 3408 (b)] provides that, at the initial foreclosure settlement conference, “any defendant currently appearing pro se[] shall be deemed to have made a motion to proceed as a poor person under [CPLR 1101]. The court shall determine whether such permission shall be granted pursuant to standards set forth in [CPLR 1101]” (CPLR 3408 [b]). Because defendants appeared at the June 2016 settlement conference without representation, each was “deemed to have made a motion to proceed as a poor person” and Supreme Court was required to determine such motion (CPLR 3408 [b]). Although Supreme Court erred in failing to adhere to its obligations under CPLR 3408 (b), the question remains whether defendants would have been eligible for the assignment of counsel based upon their financial circumstances. The record does not contain adequate information to render such a determination (see CPLR 1101 [a]). The eligibility for assigned counsel is a threshold issue that must be resolved before we can determine the merits of this appeal. As such, we withhold decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to render a determination as to defendants’ eligibility for assigned counsel as of the June 2016 settlement conference … . Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Fiore, 2021 NY Slip Op 05743, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVIT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The affidavit of the loan servicer’s vice president (Lee) was deficient in content and did not identify or attach the records referenced:

Lee failed to aver to familiarity with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the entity that generated the records or establish that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records and routinely relied upon by the recipient in its own business … .

… [E]ven if Lee’s affidavit set forth a proper foundation for the admissibility of the unspecified records he relied on … , Lee “failed to identify the records upon which [ ]he relied in making the statements, and the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the records themselves” … . It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 05690, Second Dept 10-20-21

Similar issues and result in Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 2021 NY Slip Op 05694, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

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