You are here: / Foreclosure
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DUE DILIGENCE IN ASCERTAINING THE NAME OF THE PARTY REFERRED TO AS “JOHN DOE” IN THE COMPLIANT RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED; ALTHOUGH THE COURT PROPERLY DEEMED PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY TIMELY FILED NUNC PRO TUNC, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED RETROACTIVELY ONCE THE DEFECT WAS CURED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to substitute the party’s name (here Esther Shaskos) for the “John Doe” named in the complaint because the plaintiff did not demonstrate it exercised due diligence to timely ascertain Esther’s identity. Therefore the complaint as against Esther was time-barred. As for the complaint against Elliot Shaskos, who was named in the complaint, the proof of service was never filed. Although the filing failure is not a jurisdictional defect and therefore did not preclude ruling the proof of service timely filed nunc pro tunc, the default judgment against Elliot should not have been granted retroactively when the defect was cured. Elliot was given the opportunity to answer the complaint:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the caption to substitute Esther for the defendant “John Doe.” The court erred in applying the “John Doe” designation authorized by CPLR 1024 and the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203(c) to bar application of the statute of limitations, because the plaintiff failed to establish that it “made diligent efforts to ascertain the unknown party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations” … . …

The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion, or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . … Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem proof of service to have been timely filed nunc pro tunc. In granting this relief, however, the court must do so upon such terms as may be just, and only where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see CPLR 2001 …). The court may not make such relief retroactive, to the prejudice of a defendant, by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the orde … . Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the Shashos’ cross motion which was for leave to serve and file an answer, and denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Elliot (see CPLR 320[a]). Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Shasho, 2021 NY Slip Op 04632, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW EVEN IF BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW ADDRESSED AN OMISSION IN THE ORGINGAL MOTION PAPERS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RAISED SUA SPONTE AS THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The judge denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the parties—plaintiff’s failure to submit a power of attorney authorizing a party to act as a loan servicer. The motion to renew addressed that omission, which had been raised by the judge sua sponte:

“Generally, ‘a motion for leave to renew is intended to bring to the court’s attention new or additional facts which were in existence at the time the original motion was made, but were unknown to the movant'” … . “However, the requirement that a motion for leave to renew be based upon new or additional facts unknown to the movant at the time of the original motion is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may also grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made”… .

Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew based upon the submission of the limited power of attorney, since the plaintiff’s initial failure to submit the power of attorney was raised sua sponte by the court … . NP162, LLC v Harding, 2021 NY Slip Op 04612, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant in this foreclosure action could not raise the plaintiff’s failure to comply with an Administrative Order (AO) because it could have been raised on a prior appeal which was not perfected. The dissent argued the court could and should address the “AO” issue on this appeal:

From the dissent:

… [A] plaintiff’s attorney is required to affirm after conferring with a representative of the plaintiff and upon the attorney’s “own inspection and other reasonable inquiry” that the pleadings and submissions “contain no false statements of fact or law.”  …

… [P]laintiff’s attorney was required to file the affidavit conforming with AO/431/11 and AO/208/13, an issue that was directly raised in defendant’s motion to vacate and could have been addressed by this Court had defendant perfected his appeal from the court’s April 2018 order. In an instance such as this, this Court “has the authority to entertain a second appeal in the exercise of [our] discretion, even where a prior appeal on the same issue has been dismissed for failure to prosecute” … . Given that the filing of an attorney affirmation is mandatory and, at the latest, must be filed five business days before a scheduled auction … , I believe we should exercise our discretion and address the issue of noncompliance (id.). To assure the integrity of the foreclosure process, which is the entire objective of the Administrative Orders, we should modify the order by requiring a continued stay of any auction sale pending the submission of a compliant attorney affirmation. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sage, 2021 NY Slip Op 04583, Third Dept 7-29-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of defendants’ default in mortgage payments was based upon business records which were not produced:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment by submitting the affidavit of Haley Pope, the Foreclosure Manager for its loan servicer. Pope did not specifically state that she had personal knowledge of the defendants’ default in payment. To the extent Pope relied on her review of business records, she did not identify which records she relied on to assert a default in payment, or attach any business records to her affidavit to substantiate the alleged default in payment. Thus, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden by relying on Pope’s conclusory assertion that the defendants defaulted in payment, which was not supported by a factual basis … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v McLaughlin, 2021 NY Slip Op 04576, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SHE STILL CAN CONTEST THE AMOUNT OWED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT HERE WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED IN PART ON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should have been rejected because it was based in part on business records which were not produced. Although defendant was in default, she still could contest the amount owed:

The fact that the defendant defaulted in appearing did not mean that she was precluded from contesting the amount owed … . The Supreme Court should not have confirmed the referee’s report because the referee’s recommendation that the plaintiff be awarded tax and hazard insurance disbursements was premised upon unproduced business records … . Consequently, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . Accordingly, we reject the referee’s report and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new report computing the amount due to the plaintiff, followed by further proceedings in accordance with CPLR 4403 and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Campbell, 2021 NY Slip Op 04574, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

, ,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT ATTACHED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The business records referred in the affidavit of the banks servicing agent were not attached:

Where, as here, a foreclosure complaint is not verified, CPLR 3215(f) states, among other things, that upon any application for a judgment by default, proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default, and the amount due are to be set forth in an affidavit made by the party'” … . Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit executed by a “Document Execution Specialist” who was employed by the plaintiff’s servicing agent … . The affiant asserted that she had personal knowledge of the merits of the plaintiff’s cause of action based upon her review of various business records. However, as the defendants correctly contend, since the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which the affiant relied in her affidavit, her factual assertions based upon those records constituted inadmissible hearsay, and her affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate “proof of the facts constituting the claim” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hossain, 2021 NY Slip Op 04480, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

, ,

A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon,, determined the defendant in this foreclosure action waived any stay of proceedings under CPLR 321(c) triggered by her attorney’s suspension:

CPLR 321(c) … provides any adversary party with a mechanism for lifting a stay—by serving a notice upon the nonrepresented party to obtain a new attorney.  Thus there are … two ways in which a CPLR 321(c) stay may be lifted. One way is if the party that lost its counsel retains new counsel at its own initiative, or otherwise communicates an intention to proceed pro se … . The second way is by means of the above-described notice procedure … . …

… [T]he plaintiff moved … for summary judgment … and for an order of reference … at a time when no event allowing for the lifting of the CPLR 321(c) stay had yet occurred. No new attorney had yet appeared on behalf of the defendant, and there is no indication that the defendant had elected to proceed pro se … . Moreover, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment without having served a CPLR 321(c) notice demanding the appointment of new counsel and without abiding by the statutorily mandated 30-day waiting period that follows the notice.

Nevertheless, the defendant’s new counsel formally appeared in the action six days after the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was filed, submitted papers in opposition to that motion, and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, all within the original or adjusted briefing schedule. … The appearance and activities of the defendant’s new counsel operated, in effect, as a waiver of the protections otherwise afforded to the defendant by CPLR 321(c) … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kurian, 2021 NY Slip Op 04509, Second Dept 7-31-21

 

,

ONCE PLAINTIFF ACCELERATED THE DEBT BY COMMENCING FORECLOSURE DEFENDANTS COULD EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO REDEEM THE MORTGAGE WITHOUT TRIGGERING A CONTRACTUAL PREPAYMENT PENALTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled defendants could exercise their right of redemption in this foreclosure action without triggering the plaintiff’s contractual right to withhold consent to prepayment:

… [D]efendants were not seeking to prepay the amount due under the note, rather plaintiff accelerated the remaining amount due by instituting a foreclosure action and sending the demand letter.

We … reject plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to the remaining amount due on the note, including all unaccrued interest payments. It is well settled that, once a foreclosure proceeding is commenced, “[a] mortgagor or other owner of the equity of redemption of a property subject to a judgment of foreclosure and sale may redeem the mortgage at any time prior to the foreclosure sale” … . “An unconditional tender of the full amount due is all that is required” to exercise the right of redemption … . Thus, defendants’ tender of payment of the entire mortgage principal and the accrued interest was all that was required “in response to [plaintiff’s] acceleration of the debt upon default [and, as noted,] did not constitute a ‘prepayment’ of the debt within the meaning of the prepayment clause set forth in the mortgage” … . Inasmuch as “the accelerated payment here is the result of plaintiff[-]mortgagee[] having elected to bring this foreclosure action, [he] may not exact a prepayment penalty” … . Virkler v V.S. Virkler & Son, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04434, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

,

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT INCLUDE THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence purporting to demonstrate the bank’s standing in this foreclosure action was insufficient. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit of possession from Nichole Renee Williams, an employee of its loan servicer, who averred, inter alia, that, based upon her review of business records purportedly attached to the motion papers, the plaintiff was in physical possession of the note on the date of commencement of the action. However, the plaintiff failed to identify and produce those business records referred to by Williams in her affidavit. “[E]vidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records themselves are introduced” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Since Williams’ purported knowledge of the date that the plaintiff received the original note was based upon her review of unidentified and unproduced business records, her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Oziel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04388, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

,

THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE BANK; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the criteria for the notice required by RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action were not met. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

RPAPL 1304(1), which applies to residential foreclosure actions, provides, among other things, that, “at least [90] 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.” The version of RPAPL 1304 which existed at the time this action was commenced provided that notices required to be sent pursuant to this section “shall contain a list of at least five housing counseling agencies . . . that serve the region where the borrower resides,” with their “last known addresses and telephone numbers” (RPAPL former 1304[2]).

Here, the RPAPL notices submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment failed to demonstrate that the notices contained five housing agencies that served the region where the defendant resided. As a result, the plaintiff did not meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . US Bank N.A. v Gurung, 2021 NY Slip Op 04387, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

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