You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated with admissible evidence. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

… [T]he affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. The affiant did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, or that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff, which allegedly sent the notice … . In addition, the plaintiff’s submission of an affidavit of its own employee was similarly insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, since the employee had no personal knowledge of the purported mailings and he did not attest to a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient proof of the actual mailings of the notices by first-class mail … . Ridgewood Sav. Bank v Van Amerongen, 2020 NY Slip Op 08095, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

, ,

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was not time barred because CPLR 204(a) in conjunction with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) prohibited bringing the instant action while the first action was pending:

In September 2003, defendant, in exchange for a loan to purchase a residence, executed a note secured by a mortgage on that real property. The note and mortgage were later assigned to plaintiff. After defendant failed to make some payments, on May 5, 2010 plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action against defendant, which Supreme Court (Drago, J.) dismissed on October 30, 2013 for failure to prosecute. In April 2015, Supreme Court (Buchannan, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. In 2017, plaintiff commenced a second foreclosure action. * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides that, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” * * *

The statute that plaintiff relies on, in conjunction with CPLR 204 (a), is RPAPL 1301 (3), which provides that, while an action for a mortgage debt “is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, 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 purpose of RPAPL 1301 (3) is “to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt … . … [P]laintiff established that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the first foreclosure action, from May 2010 to October 2013. Citimortgage, Inc. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07970, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not present admissible evidence of defendants’ default in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, a default in payment by Vanterpool and Chalas [defendants]. While the plaintiff submitted an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s loan servicer’s business practices and procedures, the affiant failed to submit any business record to substantiate the alleged default … . Further, “[w]hile a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Vanterpool, 2020 NY Slip Op 07946, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

THE BANK PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not submit admissible evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action:

While a witness may always testify as to matters within his or her personal knowledge through personal observation … , here, Klein [plaintiff’s counsel] did not provide any factual details concerning when Cohn & Roth [Klein’s lawfirm] came into physical possession of the consolidated note and allonges … . Modlin’s [an authorized signatory’s] affidavit was similarly deficient inasmuch as she failed to identify the documents reviewed or any basis for the conclusion that the consolidated note and allonges had been in the plaintiff’s possession and were sent to Cohn & Roth prior to the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the statements made by Klein and Modlin constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Auxila, 2020 NY Slip Op 07945, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing with admissible evidence and the lost note affidavit was insufficient:

… [T]he only business record entered into evidence to support DeCaro’s [plaintiff’s loan verification consultant’s] testimony that the plaintiff was in possession of the note on the date of commencement was plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, a computer screen printout of a database tracking system. However, plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 failed to evince the facts for which it was relied upon. More specifically, while DeCaro contended that the document demonstrated that Wells Fargo, as custodian for the plaintiff, received the note July 16, 2005, and that the note was in Wells Fargo’s vault from July 2005 until December 2009, the document, in itself, failed to establish those facts.

Further, pursuant to UCC 3-804, which is intended to provide a method for recovering on instruments that are lost, destroyed, or stolen, a plaintiff is required to submit due proof of the plaintiff’s ownership of the note, the facts which prevent the plaintiff from producing the note, and the note’s terms … . Here, the lost note affidavit, which 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, failed to sufficiently establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Gilbert, 2020 NY Slip Op 07874, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

AN INFORMAL JUDICIAL ADMISSTION BY PLAINTIFF BANK’S FORMER COUNSEL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LOAN HAD BEEN MODIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because of an informal judicial admission made by plaintiff’s former counsel. The admission raised a question of fact whether the note and mortgage had been superseded by a loan modification:

… [T]he averment of the plaintiff’s former counsel, in support of the voluntary discontinuance of the prior foreclosure action, that the loan had been modified, constituted an informal judicial admission by the plaintiff of that fact … . Informal judicial admissions are not conclusive, but are evidence of the fact admitted … .

On its motion, the plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence to explain the alleged error of its former counsel in a manner which would negate the probative value of his statement as an informal judicial admission. Accordingly, even assuming that the plaintiff’s submissions were otherwise sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, the absence of a loan modification (see generally CPLR 4518[a] …) the former counsel’s admission raised a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a loan modification, which precluded summary judgment … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Fortini, 2020 NY Slip Op 07873, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, , ,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAIINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to amend the answer to assert the lack-of-standing defense and plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing with admissible evidence:

“In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications to amend or supplement a pleading are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” ( …see CPLR 3025[b]). The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion … . “‘Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'”… . Here, BAC Home failed to show that any surprise or prejudice would result from the proposed amendments and did not demonstrate that the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .

The defendant did not waive the defense of lack of standing by failing to interpose the defense in his original answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see RPAPL 1302-a).

Here, in order to establish its standing, BAC Home [plaintiff’s predecessor] submitted affidavits from two document execution representatives of Ditech [plaintiff], each of whom stated that review of Ditech’s business records relating to the subject mortgage loan had confirmed that BAC Home was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. However, neither affiant identified any particular document reviewed, nor did they attach to their respective affidavits any admissible document to show that BAC Home possessed the note prior to the commencement of this action. The affidavits also failed to show that either affiant possessed personal knowledge of whether BAC Home possessed the note prior to the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan, 2020 NY Slip Op 07865, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal should have been granted because the conditions in CPLR 3216 were not met by the order:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . As relevant here, an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him or her for unreasonably neglecting to proceed … . “While a conditional order of dismissal may have the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order of dismissal here “‘was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice “will serve as a basis for a motion” by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute'” … . The Supreme Court should not have administratively dismissed the action without further notice to the parties and without benefit of further judicial review … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Henry, 2020 NY Slip Op 07863, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

THE BANKS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; 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 plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because compliance with the notice requirements of RPAP 1304 was not demonstrated with admissible evidence:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affidavit of a business operations analyst employed by the plaintiff, together with copies of 90-day notices sent to the defendants and proof of filing statements from the New York State Department of Financial Services. Although some of the copies of the 90-day notices contain what appear to be bar codes with 22-digit numbers that include the words “USPS CERTIFIED MAIL,” the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that the mailings were sent by first-class mail in addition to certified mail … . The plaintiff also failed to submit evidence of a standard office mailing procedure or an affidavit of the individual(s) who effected the service … . The submission by the plaintiff of evidence that it filed statements with the New York State Department of Financial Services, without more, is insufficient to establish that the mailing was accomplished pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v McGregor, 2020 NY Slip Op 07855, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE BANK’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action on the ground the bank did not comply with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304. The defendants defaulted and failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore it must be raised as a defense before a judge can rule on it:

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, in which the defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference, and should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint based on its determination that the plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, a plaintiff is not required to disprove the defense unless it is raised by defendants, and in this case the defendants failed to appear in the action or answer the complaint … . Chase Home Fin., LLC v Guido, 2020 NY Slip Op 07854, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

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