You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE DEATH OF THE MORTGAGOR/PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT TRIGGER AN AUTOMATIC STAY BECAUSE THE MORTGAGOR/PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE AND THE ACTION COULD CONTINUE AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTEES WITHOUT THE APPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the death of the mortgagor/property owner in this foreclosure action did not divest the court of jurisdiction because the mortgagor/property owner died intestate and the suit could continue against the distributees without the appointment of a representative:

“Generally, the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a personal representative for the decedent” … . “In most instances a personal representative appointed by the Surrogate’s Court should be substituted in the action to represent the decedent’s estate”  … . “However, if a party’s death does not affect the merits of a case, there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution” … . “Where a property owner dies intestate, title to real property is automatically vested in his or her distributees” … . Under such circumstances, “a foreclosure action may be commenced directly against the distributees” … . Thus, where a mortgagor/property owner dies intestate and the mortgagee does not seek a deficiency judgment, the mortgagor/property owner’s death “does not affect the merits of a case, [and] there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Miglio, 2021 NY Slip Op 04780, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage in this foreclosure action was insufficient:

RPAPL 1304 provides 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[1]). “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304 requires that the notice be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower … . The plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually occurred … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice by first-class mail actually occurred. Graves [document management specialist] did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, did not describe a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, and did not attach proof of first-class mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the mailing of the notice of default in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement actually occurred … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Donovan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04748, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNSUCCESSFULLY RAISED USURY AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE BROKER’S COMMISSION, TITLE INSURANCE COST AND ATTORNEY’S FEE CONSTITUTED A COVER FOR USURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the broker’s commission, title insurance and attorney’s in connection with defendant’s (Chandler’s) mortgage were not a cover for usury. Chandler had raised usury as an affirmative defense to foreclosure:

General Obligations Law § 5-501(2) provides that “[n]o person or corporation shall, directly or indirectly, charge, take or receive any money, goods or things in action as interest on the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things in action at a rate exceeding the [maximum permissible interest rate].” In New York, the civil usury statute provides that “[t]he maximum interest rate permissible on a loan is 16% per annum, and any interest rate in excess of that amount is usurious” … . “A usurious contract is void and relieves the borrower of the obligation to repay principal and interest thereon” … . There is a strong presumption against a finding of usury, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence … . …

Chandler claimed that three charges, a $14,000 mortgage broker’s commission, a title insurance charge of $7,212.50, and a $1,000 fee paid to her attorney at the closing, were a cover for usury. “[W]hether a commission is a cover for usury is a factual issue which must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence” … . If itemized in writing to the borrower, reasonable fees, charges and costs for, among other things, title insurance and legal services are not considered interest on a loan secured by a one- or two-family owner-occupied residence  Notably, “[a]n imprecise … . disclosure . . . constitutes a bona fide error of fact which is insufficient to establish the requisite usurious intent” … . Zanfini v Chandler, 2021 NY Slip Op 04681, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

,

THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS DESCRIBED IN IT, BUT THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s representative in this foreclosure action demonstrated in her affidavit that she was familiar with the relevant business records, but did not attach the records. Therefor the affidavit was hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … the affidavit of Denise Dickman, … the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who averred that she was familiar with the business records maintained … for the purpose of servicing mortgage loans for the plaintiff and that she had personal knowledge of the manner in which those business records were created. Dickman further averred that the satisfaction of mortgage was intended to be recorded against the second mortgage, under which the defendant had defaulted and which [the bank] had “charged off as uncollectable.” However, “[d]ue to a clerical error, a loan number was not included with the processing request for the charge off,” and, consequently, a satisfaction of mortgage was “prepared, executed and filed in error” … .

Since Dickman attested that she was familiar with [the bank’s] record-keeping practices and procedures, her affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the business records on which she relied in asserting that the satisfaction of mortgage was erroneously filed due to a clerical error … . However, Dickman’s assertions as to the contents of those records were inadmissible since the records themselves were not submitted with her affidavit … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Kandra, 2021 NY Slip Op 04679, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

, ,

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence of defendant’s default or the bank’s compliance the the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

… [Plaintiff’s representative] did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff or those of the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, or that the records generated by the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest were incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business (see CPLR 4518[a] … ), and failed to attach any business records of the plaintiff or its predecessor in interest to his affidavit ,,, . Moreover, to the extent that the …. employee’s purported knowledge of [defendant’s] default was based upon his review of unidentified business records … , his affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . …

The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served [defendant]  pursuant to the terms of RPAPL 1304 … . The … employee’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to [defendant] in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the employee did not provide evidence of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedure and provided no evidence of the actual mailing … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeLoney, 2021 NY Slip Op 04655, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

,

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

 

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