You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action. Therefore the lack-of-standing affirmative defense should not have been struck:

… [A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through evidence 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 the commencement of the action (see UCC 3-202[2] …).

… The plaintiff attempted to demonstrate that it was the holder of the underlying note by attaching to the complaint a copy of the note with an allonge. The purported allonge contains an endorsement in blank, has no pagination, is undated, and contains no writing in any way to demonstrate its connection to the note or that it was firmly affixed thereto. An affirmation of the plaintiff’s counsel and an affidavit of a representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion, also failed to indicate that the purported allonge is connected to the note or that it was firmly affixed thereto. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish that the purported allonge was so firmly attached to the note as to become a part thereof, and thus failed to establish, prima facie, its standing to commence this foreclosure action … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hollien, 2021 NY Slip Op 05321, Second Dept 10-7-21

 

, ,

THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

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

… Supreme Court improperly determined that the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it complied with the notice requirement of paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Statements in Johnson’s [plaintiff’s vice president’s] affidavit, “‘which asserted that the notice of default was sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage, [were] unsubstantiated and conclusory and . . . , even when considered together with the copy of the notice of default, failed to show that the required notice was in fact mailed by first class mail or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, as required by the subject mortgage'” … . Johnson did not purport to have personal knowledge of the mailing of the default notice or any familiarity with the plaintiff’s mailing practices … . Ditech Fin., LLC v Naidu, 2021 NY Slip Op 05320, Second Dept 10-7-21

 

, ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS THE RESULT OF “WILFUL NEGLECT;” THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1523, DEFENDANT’S “WILFUL-NEGLECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defense to the reforeclosure should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff had not named defendant in its original foreclosure action, apparently because a quitclaim deed adding defendant to the title was not discovered in the title search. Defendant demonstrated there had been a prior foreclosure action in which defendant had been named as a party. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the failure to name defendant in the original foreclosure action was the result of “wilful neglect:”

To prevail in a reforeclosure action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect in the original foreclosure action “was not due to fraud or wilful neglect of the plaintiff and that the defendant or the person under whom he claims was not actually prejudiced thereby” (RPAPL 1523[2] [emphasis added]).

Pursuant to the language of RPAPL 1523 … the plaintiff had the burden of demonstrating … both that the defect in the underlying foreclosure action was not the result of fraud or the wilful neglect of the foreclosure plaintiff, and that the defect did not prejudice the defendant (see RPAPL 1523[1], [2]). * * *

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the evidence of the prior foreclosure action in which the defendant was named as a party raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s failure to name her as a defendant in the underlying foreclosure action was the result of “wilful neglect” (RPAPL 1523[2] …). U.S. Bank N.A. v Lomuto, 2021 NY Slip Op 05363, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

,

SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, over a strong dissent, determined RPAPL 1304 requires that the 90-day notice of foreclosure proceedings be sent to each borrower in separate envelopes. Here a single envelope with the RPAPL 1304 notice addressed to both borrowers did not comply with the statute and the foreclosure action was properly dismissed by Supreme Court:

… [W]hile 30-day notices of default were separately mailed to each of the defendants, the 90-day notice, which was sent via certified and first-class mail, was jointly addressed to the defendants. While the record reflects that “F. Yapkowitz” signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice sent via certified mail, receipt of the notice is inconsequential. Even assuming, arguendo, that both of the defendants had signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice, the plaintiff would not have demonstrated strict compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 by mailing a notice jointly addressed to both of the borrowers in the same envelope. Since it is undisputed that the 90-day notice to each of the borrowers was sent in the same envelope, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304, a condition precedent to the commencement of the action. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 2021 NY Slip Op 05139, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION IN BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE RECORDS WERE DESCRIBED; THE INFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee in this foreclosure action relied on information in business records which were not provided along with the affidavit describing them:

The defendant argues … that the Supreme Court erred in confirming the referee’s report because the referee’s computation was premised upon unproduced business records. “The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, the affidavit executed by an employee of the plaintiff submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records she purportedly relied upon in making her calculations … . Consequently, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due under the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Clerge, 2021 NY Slip Op 05038, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined defendant’s (Yeshiva’s) counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution should have been dismissed:

Supreme Court should have granted those branches of Maspeth’s [the bank’s] motion which were to dismiss Yeshiva’s second and third counterclaims, sounding in abuse of process and malicious prosecution, respectively. To state a cause of action to recover damages for abuse of process, a party must allege the existence of (1) regularly issued process, (2) an intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) the use of process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective … . Here, Yeshiva failed to allege any actual misuse of the process to obtain an end outside its proper scope … . Moreover, “[t]he elements of the tort of malicious prosecution of a civil action are (1) prosecution of a civil action against the plaintiff, (2) by or at the instance of the defendant, (3) without probable cause, (4) with malice, (5) which terminated in favor of the plaintiff, and (6) causing special injury” … . Here, Yeshiva failed to adequately allege malice on the part of Maspeth in commencing the action, a termination of the action in favor of Yeshiva, or the requisite special injury. Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Elizer, 2021 NY Slip Op 05030, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should have been dismissed because plaintiff’s excuse for failing to take a timely default judgment was inadequate:

To avoid dismissal of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) as abandoned, a plaintiff must demonstrate both that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the action is meritorious … . “Although the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the excuse for the plaintiff’s failure to take proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part was not reasonable … . Throughout the course of this litigation, there were unexplained gaps of time where months of inactivity passed. Neither the need to move for the appointment of a successor guardian nor the plaintiff’s change of attorney which change occurred after the statutory one-year period had expired constitutes a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff’s failure to timely prosecute this action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Whaley, 2021 NY Slip Op 05027, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

, , ,

PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant failed to demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements in this foreclosure action. The proof of mailing to the correct address was first provided in reply papers for the motion to confirm the referee’s report and was not part of plaintiff’s initial summary judgment motion. And the proof of mailing was not supported by proof of the affiant’s knowledge of the mailing practices and procedures of the party which actually mailed the documents:

Although Cantu [plaintiff’s default servicing officer] stated in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and first-class mail to the defendants at the property, and he attached copies of 90-day notices with corresponding certified and first-class envelopes, Cantu did not attach the 90-day notices and envelopes addressed to the property where the defendants resided or any United States Post Office documentation showing that the purported mailings to the property actually occurred … . To the extent the plaintiff relies on copies of the 90-day notices with corresponding certified and first-class envelopes addressed to the property which were submitted for the first time in its reply papers on its subsequent motion … to confirm the referee’s report, those documents were insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden on its initial motion … for summary judgment … . “A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance” … . Further, while Cantu asserted that he had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s procedures for creating and maintaining its business records, he did not attest that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Walz, the third-party entity that he acknowledged sent the notices … . Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish proof of standard office practices and procedures designed to ensure the notices were properly addressed and mailed … . Caliber Home Loans, Inc. v Weinstein, 2021 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

,

A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAS “FAILED TO APPEAR” IS NOT ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT, NOTWITHSTANDING DICTA IN PRIOR 2ND DEPARTMENT RULINGS; A DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WHERE A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAS DEFAULTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive discussion of the requirements for seeking a default judgment, including the meaning of “failure to appear,” determined the party which failed to appear in this foreclosure action was not entitled to notice of a motion to confirm a referee’s report. The extensive and detailed explanation of the applicable law was deemed necessary to clear up dicta in Second Department decisions which indicated such notice was required:

CPLR 3215(g)(1) applies “whenever application is made to the court or to the clerk.” By its plain language, it merely requires the plaintiff to provide “notice of the time and place of the application” for a default judgment … , which application must be held in a location authorized by CPLR 3215(e), and supported by, among other things, “proof of . . . the amount due” … . … [T]he purpose of the notice is to provide a defaulted defendant with the “opportunity to challenge the amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs” … . Contrary to [defendant’s] contention, CPLR 3215(g)(1) does not, once triggered, require a plaintiff to provide five days’ notice of every subsequent motion or application in the action … .

The 2017 motion was not an “application” for a default judgment within the meaning of CPLR 3215(b). Rather, the 2017 motion sought confirmation of the referee’s report and entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale, relief predicated on CPLR 4403 … . Since the 2017 motion was not an “application” within the meaning of CPLR 3215(b), the notice specified in CPLR 3215(g)(1) was inapplicable to the 2017 motion, and notice of that motion was instead governed by the general notice provisions applicable to all motions (see CPLR 2103[e]). As already observed, that section merely requires that notice be served on “every other party who has appeared” … . Since, at the time of the 2017 motion, [defendant’s predecessor] still had not made any appearance in the action, it was not, without more, entitled to notice of that motion … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Raghu, 2021 NY Slip Op 05016, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE FORECLOSED PROPERTY IN THIS ACTION SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1371 (2) WERE DEFECIENT; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED A HEARING TO ESTABLISH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department in this foreclosure proceeding seeking a deficiency judgment determined Supreme Court properly ordered a hearing to establish the fair market value of the property. The submitted affidavits were not sufficient:

“RPAPL 1371(2) permits the mortgagee in a mortgage foreclosure action to recover a deficiency judgment for the difference between the amount of indebtedness on the mortgage and either the auction price at the foreclosure sale or the fair market value of the property, whichever is higher” …  When a lender moves to secure a deficiency judgment against a borrower, “the court . . . shall determine, upon affidavit or otherwise as it shall direct, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises as of the date such premises were bid in at auction or such nearest earlier date as there shall have been any market value thereof” … . “It is the lender who bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, the property’s fair market value as of the date of the auction sale”… . “RPAPL 1371 does not require the court to hold an evidentiary hearing; however, where ‘a triable issue as to the reasonable market value is presented, that issue should not be decided upon affidavits, but by the court or a referee, so that the witnesses may be subject to observation and cross-examination'” … . …

The appraisal … was not certified, nor was it accompanied by an affidavit of the appraiser. Moreover, the appraisal stated that the value indicated by the income approach was in the amount of $450,000, while the value indicated by the sales comparison approach was in the amount of $480,000. There was no explanation as to why the Supreme Court should accept the value based on the income approach as opposed to the sales comparison approach. U.S. Bank, N.A. v 199-02 Linden Blvd. Realty, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04991, Second Dept 8-15-21

 

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