You are here: / Foreclosure
,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT INTEND TO ABANDON THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse for failure to take steps to enter a default judgment in this foreclosure action within one year of the default:

The plaintiff’s … argument … [is] that, by moving for summary judgment and leave to enter a default judgment … , the plaintiff had “manifest[ed] its intent not to abandon this case.” However, while “[i]t is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … , and a plaintiff is not even required to specifically seek a default judgment within a year, but may take “the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving . . . for an order of reference pursuant to RPAPL 1321” … that preliminary step still must be taken “within one year of [a defendant’s] default” … . Here, since the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and an order of reference almost two years after the default, when the statutory time within which to enter a default had long since expired, it was too late for the plaintiff to “manifest an intent not to abandon the case” … so as to avoid dismissal of the complaint … . US Bank N..A.. v Davis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04251, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

, ,

AS LONG AS BOTH THE CERTIFIED AND FIRST-CLASS-MAIL LETTERS NOTIFYING A MORTGAGEE OF A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE ARE NOT RETURNED, THE MORTGAGEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 1125 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff property owner, pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1125, was properly notified of the tax foreclosure proceedings, despite plaintiff’s allegation that the certified letter was delivered to a post office box, not the street address. RPTL 1125 deems service accomplished if the letters are not returned:

Defendants were required to send the notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding to plaintiff “by certified mail and ordinary first class mail” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] … ). The record contains documentary evidence demonstrating that the petition and notice of foreclosure were sent via certified mail and first class mail to plaintiff at “4153 Broadway” in Kansas City, Missouri — the address for plaintiff as listed on the mortgage … .The record also discloses that neither of these mailings was returned. Accordingly, defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating that they complied with RPTL 1125.

In opposition thereto, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the tracking information sheet for the certified mailing sent by the County. This sheet indicated that the certified mailing was delivered to an unspecified post office box, as opposed to 4153 Broadway, in Kansas City, Missouri. To that end, plaintiff asserts that a material issue of fact exists as to whether it received notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding. The petition and notice of foreclosure sent to plaintiff, however, “shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States [P]ostal [S]ervice within [45] days after being mailed” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] …). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2021 NY Slip Op 04074, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s evidence of standing in this foreclosure action was inadmissible hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … the affidavit of James Green, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Green averred, based upon his review of “the business records relating to the subject mortgage loan,” that the plaintiff obtained possession of the note on June 14, 2006, and was in possession of the note as of the commencement of the action. However, Green did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the entity that generated the records or that those records were incorporated into the loan servicer’s records and routinely relied upon by the loan servicer in its own business. Thus, Green failed to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the records he relied upon to support his claim that the plaintiff had possession of the note as of the commencement of the action … . US Bank N.A. v Weinman, 2021 NY Slip Op 04051, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

, , ,

THE CITY CHARTER PROVISION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF A PENDING TAX FORECLOSURE SALE TO MORTGAGEES AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE MORTGAGEE’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS PROCEEDING; THE MORTGAGEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the city charter provision did not provide for notice of pending tax lien sales to parties other than the owner which violated the due process rights of mortgagees:

“The constitutional guarantee of due process requires that a party who has a substantial property interest which may be affected by a tax lien sale receive notice that is ‘reasonably calculated’ to apprise it of an impending sale” … . Thus, “actual notice of a tax sale must be given to all parties with a substantial interest in the property whose names and addresses are ‘reasonably ascertainable'” … . A mortgagee has a legally protected property interest and is legally entitled to notice of a pending tax sale … .

Here, section 93 of the City Charter of the City of Middletown … does not provide for notice of pending tax lien sales to parties other than the owner, but provides only for post-sale notice 60 days prior to the divesting of all rights in the property. As such, City Charter section 93 fails to comport with due process requirements because it makes no provision for actual notice of impending tax sales to be given to mortgagees of record … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and, as relevant to this appeal, granted that branch of [the mortgagee’s]  motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the City. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v City of Middletown, 2021 NY Slip Op 04006, Second Dept 6-23-21

Similar issue and result in Delacorte v Luyanda, 2021 NY Slip Op 04009, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s representative relied on business records which were not identified or attached to demonstrate defendant’s (Huertas’s) default in this foreclosure action. Therefore the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Crystal Dunbar, a foreclosure specialist of … the mortgage loan servicer for the plaintiff’s assignee … to show that Huertas had defaulted under the terms of the subject note by failing to make required monthly payments. In her affidavit, Dunbar stated that Huertas “defaulted under their note for $227,136.00 owing to the Plaintiff . . . by having failed to make monthly payments on September 01, 2009 to date.” Dunbar did not state that she had personal knowledge of the default, but averred that she had “personal knowledge of the [p]laintiff’s records and record making practices, and how such records [were] made, used and kept.” Dunbar’s affidavit was sufficient to provide a foundation for the admission, under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay (see CPLR 4518[a]), of records related to the subject mortgage … . However, Dunbar’s purported knowledge of Huertas’s default was based upon her review of unidentified business records, which she failed to attach to her affidavit. Accordingly, her assertions regarding Huertas’s default, without the business records upon which she relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Huertas, 2021 NY Slip Op 04005, First Dept 6-23-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304:

Although the RPAPL 1304 notices were allegedly mailed from New York by the same law firm that filed the summary judgment motion on behalf of the plaintiff, no one from that law firm provided an affidavit of mailing, or any other evidentiary proof in admissible form to establish that the mailing was properly completed. Instead, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jennifer Jeudy, a contract management coordinator based in Palm Beach County, Florida, who averred, without further explanation, that the RPAPL 1304 notices “were mailed by first-class and certified mail, having been placed in an official depository under the exclusive case [sic] and custody of the United States Post Office in postage-paid properly addressed envelopes.” Since the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof of the actual mailing, and Jeudy did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the plaintiff’s New York law firm, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Malik, 2021 NY Slip Op 03596, Second Dept 6-9-21

Similar issues and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Ehrlich, 2021 NY Slip Op 03627, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, , ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMSSED AS TIME-BARRED; RPAPL 1304 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT A STATUTORY PROHIBITION WHICH WOULD TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure action as time-barred, cancel the notice of pendency and cancel and discharge the mortgage (RPAPL article 15) was properly granted. The decision is too complex and factually specific to fairly summarize here (but well worth reading). One of the issues addressed was the difference between a statutory prohibition, which would toll the statute of limitations, and a condition precedent, which would not:

CPLR 204(a) provides that “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by a statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not part of the time within which the action must be commenced” … . RPAPL 1304, which the plaintiff argues is a “statutory prohibition,” requires that “at least ninety 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.” RPAPL 1304 describes the required content and manner of service of the notice. “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … .

“A statutory prohibition and a condition precedent are separate concepts” … . The salient feature of a “statutory prohibition” is the plaintiff’s lack of control. Since a plaintiff has complete control over the acts necessary to effectuate compliance with a condition precedent, a condition precedent is not a statutory prohibition … . Thus, because the plaintiff had control over when to serve the RPAPL 1304 notice, and could have done so at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, RPAPL 1304 is not a statutory prohibition within the meaning of CPLR 204(a) … . Everhome Mtge. Co. v Aber, 2021 NY Slip Op 03574, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

,

WHERE THE ORDER DISMISSING A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 AFTER A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY IN SEEKING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A GENERAL PATTERN OF DELAY THE SAVINGS CLAUSE OF CPLR 205 APPLIES AND THE ACTION MAY BE RE-COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the initial foreclosure action was not dismissed for failure to prosecute and, therefore, the savings provision of CPLR 205 applied. The court noted that the seven-year delay in seeking a default judgment which resulted in the dismissal did not constitute “neglect to prosecute:”

For purposes of the savings provision of CPLR 205 (a), “[w]here a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to [CPLR 3216] or otherwise, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Here, the first action was dismissed as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). In making this determination, Supreme Court noted that plaintiff waited almost seven years before moving for a default after defendant failed to answer and that plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking the default. Therefore … Supreme Court’s order dismissing the first action did not set forth on the record conduct that “demonstrate[d] a general pattern of delay” … . As such, under these circumstances, the second action does not fall outside the savings provision … . * * *

… [T]he Second Department recently ruled that the savings provision was still applicable to a subsequent action when the prior action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) for failure to move for a judgment against a defendant for “almost seven years” because the trial court did not include findings of specific conduct demonstrating a general pattern of delay in proceeding with litigation … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Jalas, 2021 NY Slip Op 03506, Third Dept 6-3-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the note was lost and did not present sufficient evidence to warrant correction of the legal description of the premises in the mortgage:

“Pursuant to UCC 3-804, which is intended to provide a method of recovery on instruments that are lost, destroyed, or stolen, a plaintiff is required to submit ‘due proof of [the plaintiff’s] ownership, the facts which prevent [its] production of [the note,] and its terms'” … . Here, the copy of the note annexed to the lost note affidavit provided sufficient evidence of the terms of the note … . However, the lost note affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note, as it “failed to establish when the note was acquired and failed to provide sufficient facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or how or when the note was lost” … .Thus, the affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note at the time the action was commenced. …

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [plaintiff’s] ]motion which was for summary judgment … to reform the mortgage to correct the legal description of the premises. “A party seeking reformation of a contract by reason of mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentation” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zolotnitsky, 2021 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-2-21, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, ,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not present sufficient evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Generally, in order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the default … . Where the plaintiff’s standing has been placed in issue by the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed, prima facie, ]to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained an additional page, entitled “Allonge to Note,” which contained a special indorsement from the original lender to the plaintiff. However, … the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Maleno-Fowler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03344, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

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