You are here: / Foreclosure
, , ,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit proof of the actual mailings, such as the affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure. Instead, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who did not attest that she had personal knowledge that the notices were mailed, or attest to a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … .

Likewise, relying on the same affidavit, the plaintiff failed to establish compliance with the requirements for a notice of default pursuant to sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage agreement. Statements in the employee’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” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Peykar, 2021 NY Slip Op 03077, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

, ,

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE JOINDER OF THE ESTATE INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court properly held that the estate was a necessary party in this foreclosure action, but failing the include the estate did no warrant dismissal of the complaint. Rather, the court should directed that the estate be joined as a party:

Supreme Court did not err in finding that the estate was a necessary defendant. “Pursuant to RPAPL 1311(1), ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, ‘[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the courtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein'” … . Particularly where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, and alleges a default in payment subsequent to the death of the deceased mortgagor, the estate of the mortgagor is a necessary party to the foreclosure action … . However, dismissal of the complaint was not the proper remedy; rather, the proper remedy was to direct the joinder of the estate as a defendant (see CPLR 1001[b] …). BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 02780, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action, the defendants properly raised plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in opposition to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed … to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained two additional pages, the first entitled “Allonge to Note” and the second entitled “Note Allonge.” However, as the defendants correctly contend, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to indicate that the purported allonges were so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). …

… [S]ince the proper service of a RPAPL 1304 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, the defendants could properly raise this defense for the first time in their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the burden of establishing prima facie compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 was with the plaintiff … . …

… [I]n order to establish its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff submitted two affidavits from its “authorized signer,” Tracy A. Duck. However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, neither affidavit was sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Among other things, Duck did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity that purportedly sent the notices … . Moreover, the business records attached to Duck’s second affidavit were insufficient to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . LNV Corp. v Almberg, 2021 NY Slip Op 02791, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION MET THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 308 (4); THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. The process server for the bank in this foreclosure action satisfied the due diligence requirement for service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4):

There were four attempts to serve the defendants at their residence at times when they could reasonably have been expected to be found there, including attempts on a late weekday evening, an early weekday morning, a weekend evening, and a weekday afternoon … . As the plaintiff established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendants, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them … and decided the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the merits instead of, in effect, denying it as academic. Wilmington Trust Co. v Gewirtz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02562, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAIVED DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS DISPOSITIVE AND NEVER LITIGATED; THE BANK’S FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE BANK’S ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank’s failure to move for a default judgment within one year required dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). The court noted that Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held defendant waived dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) because the issue had never been litigated:

Although the Supreme Court keenly observed that the defendants had filed a notice of appearance in the first action in October 2014, it should not have, sua sponte, determined that such notice of appearance constituted a waiver of their right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), as the parties never litigated the issue of waiver. Since that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint had “‘dispositive import'” … , the court should have notified the parties of the waiver issue and afforded them an opportunity to be heard prior to determining the cross motion on a ground neither side argued. …

“The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . “‘Failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment may be excused, however, upon a showing of sufficient cause,’ which requires the plaintiff to ‘demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action'” … . Wells Fargo Bank v Aucapina, 2021 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION A DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A DISMISSAL ON THE MERITS RE: RES JUDICATA; A SECOND DISCONTINUANCE WHICH IS NOT ON NOTICE IS NOT A DISCONTINUANCE WITH PREJUDICE RE: CPLR 3217 (C) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a foreclosure action dismissed for lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits. The court further noted that a second discontinuance is not with prejudice, i.e., on the merits, unless it is on notice:

“‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of all other claims arising out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even if based upon a different theory involving materially different elements of proof'” … . However, “a dismissal premised on lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes” … .. Here, the instant action was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the 2014 action was dismissed for, inter alia, lack of standing, and that does not qualify as a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes … .

CPLR 3217(c) provides that “[u]nless otherwise stated in the notice, stipulation or order of discontinuance, the discontinuance is without prejudice, except that a discontinuance by means of notice operates as an adjudication on the merits if the party has once before discontinued by any method an action based on or including the same cause of action.” The dismissal of the second action after a previous discontinuance only operates as an adjudication on the merits if that second discontinuance is achieved by means of notice … . Here, after the 2010 action was discontinued by means of notice, the 2014 action was dismissed after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. Since the 2014 action was not discontinued by means of notice, CPLR 3217(c) is inapplicable to this instant action. US Bank Trust, N.A. v Loring, 2021 NY Slip Op 02559, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BANK’S LETTER DE-ACCELERATING THE DEBT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s claim  he did not receive plaintiff-bank’s letter de-accelerating the debt (thereby stopping the running of the six-year statute of limitations) was not sufficient to warrant dismissal of the complaint as time-barred:

The filing of the summons and complaint in the 2009 action constituted a valid election by the plaintiff to accelerate the maturity of the entire mortgage debt … . This established that the mortgage debt was accelerated in February 2009, and that, without more, the applicable six-year statute of limitations had expired by the time the plaintiff commenced the instant action in March 2016 … .

In opposition, however, the plaintiff produced the January 2015 letter of de-acceleration and alleged that it had been sent to the defendant. Although the defendant claimed that he had never received the letter and had no knowledge of it, the mere denial of receipt was not sufficient to satisfy his burden on his cross motion for summary judgment of establishing that the plaintiff or its loan servicer did not properly send the notice to him … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hochstrasser, 2021 NY Slip Op 02380, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REQUIRED BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action with admissible evidence:

Although the plaintiff can establish standing by attaching the blank-endorsed note to the complaint when commencing the action … here, the record demonstrates that the plaintiff only attached the mortgage to the complaint. Moreover, although Wallace [representing the plaintiff bank’s loan servicer] stated in her affidavit, based on her review of certain business records, that the plaintiff or its agent had possession of the note prior to commencement, the affidavit was insufficient to establish standing because the records themselves were not submitted by the plaintiff … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Szal, 2021 NY Slip Op 02274, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; 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 bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he affidavit of Lori Spisak, an “authorized signer” of the plaintiff, submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion, was insufficient to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notice was properly mailed, because Spisak did not have personal knowledge of the mailing, and her affidavit did not contain proof of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedure at the time the RPAPL 1304 notice allegedly was sent. The plaintiff also did not provide any independent proof of actual mailing. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notice it allegedly sent was in at least fourteen-point type. Capital One, N.A. v Liman, 2021 NY Slip Op 02270, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

,

THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was precluded by a prior action which had not been discontinued:

In May 2014, JPMorgan commenced an action to foreclose the consolidated mortgage (hereinafter the prior action). In August 2014, JPMorgan assigned the consolidated mortgage to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter the plaintiff). In August 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose the subject mortgage. …

RPAPL 1301(3) provides that “[w]hile [an] action is pending . . . , no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” “The object of the statute is to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt” … . Here, since the plaintiff commenced the instant action without leave of the court in which the prior action was brought, and there is no basis in the record to determine that JPMorgan discontinued or effectively abandoned the prior action, dismissal is warranted under RPAPL 1301(3) … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Starr-Klein, 2021 NY Slip Op 02269, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

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