You are here: / Foreclosure
,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendant should have been granted in the interest of justice. The court described the difference between the “good cause” and “interest of justice” analyses and indicated that if a court finds relief is not warranted for good cause, the interest of justice analysis should then be considered:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service of the summons and complaint for good cause shown or in the interest of justice … . “‘Good cause’ and ‘interest of justice’ are two separate and independent statutory standards” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service” … . If good cause for an extension is not established, the court must consider the broader interest of justice standard of CPLR 306-b … . In considering the interest of justice standard, ‘the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statutes of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant'” … .

Although the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b, it established that an extension of time to serve the defendant was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff established, among other things, that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action, that it promptly moved for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged service on the ground that it was defective, and that there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay in service … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ciafone, 2020 NY Slip Op 06580, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute should have been granted because the conditions required by CPLR 3216 were not met:

A court may not dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216 on its own initiative unless certain conditions precedent have been complied with, including the requirement that “where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court . . . ‘the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, to vacate the … order, as that order failed to set forth the specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 06576, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was sufficient, but the bank’s proof of standing to bring the foreclosure action was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a person employed by the plaintiff as a business operations analyst, who described the procedure by which mailings were documented in a correspondence log, and laid a foundation for consideration of business records he submitted. Annexed to the affidavit was a copy of excerpts of the correspondence log, which indicated that notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304 were sent to the defendant by certified and first-class mail. The plaintiff also submitted, inter alia, a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS certified mail barcode, and a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS first-class mail barcode, along with copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices sent to the defendant. …

… [T]he plaintiff submitted a copy of the note, along with a paper, which was labeled an allonge, containing an endorsement in blank. However, the plaintiff did not submit evidence to indicate that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof, as required under UCC 3-202(2) … . Moreover, at the time the action was commenced, the plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff did not append a copy of the purported allonge … . The affidavits submitted by the plaintiff do not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action … .  Citimortgage, Inc. v Ustick, 2020 NY Slip Op 06489, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR; DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this foreclosure action should not have been, sua sponte, dismissed for failure to take steps to procure a default judgment within one year. Plaintiff moved for an order of reference within one year. It doesn’t matter that the motion was withdrawn:

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” It 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)  … . “Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes ‘the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference’ to establish that it ‘initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default,’ for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c)” … .

Here, the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference in May 2010, within one year of the defendants’ default … . In such cases, the complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), even if, as here, the plaintiff’s motion is later withdrawn … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hasan, 2020 NY Slip Op 06243, 11-4-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE; THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTED DEFENDANT WAS THE VICTIM OF A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD; SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s decedent’s (Renda’s) motion to vacate a default judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted in the interests of substantial justice. There was evidence Renda was the victim of a scheme to defraud and foreclosure triggers the equitable powers of the court. Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint, however:

… [W]e find that the defendant is entitled to vacatur of her default in the interests of substantial justice. “In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . “A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … .

Here, the evidence submitted strongly suggests that Renda was the victim of a scheme to defraud … .

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint. Here, there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal, and there is no indication that the court gave the parties an opportunity to be heard regarding the dismissal of the complaint … . Caridi v Tanico, 2020 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, ,

EVEN IF PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SATISFY THE GOOD CAUSE STANDARD FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time for service of the complaint in the interest of justice should have been granted. The Third Department noted that defendant had waived the statute of limitations defense by not asserting it in an answer or a motion to dismiss and Supreme Court should not have cancelled the mortgage because defendant did not request that relief:

… [D]efendant contends … that her default was properly vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not raise any argument as to whether service was properly effectuated upon defendant or whether a traverse hearing should have been granted. … Plaintiff instead argues that it was entitled to an extension of time under CPLR 306-b to cure any service defects.

To that end, a plaintiff may be granted an extension of time to serve process upon a defendant “upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . Even if we agreed with defendant that plaintiff failed to satisfy the good cause standard of CPLR 306-b, we find that plaintiff established its entitlement to an extension of time in the interest of justice. “The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . The record discloses that, approximately one month after commencing this action, plaintiff made numerous attempts to serve defendant at the address provided on the mortgage documents. Plaintiff likewise cross-moved for an extension of time to cure any service defects approximately one month after defendant raised the issue of improper service. Furthermore, defendant does not argue, nor does the record indicate, that she would suffer any prejudice if an extension of time was granted. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that plaintiff demonstrated the merits of its claim, plaintiff’s cross motion, to the extent that it sought an extension of time to serve process in the interest of justice, should have been granted … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Kaufman, 2020 NY Slip Op 06184, Third Dept 10-29-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it met the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and the bank did not demonstrate it had standing the bring the action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of first-class mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Sherry Benight, who was employed as a document control officer for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), which began servicing the subject loan on the plaintiff’s behalf on July 15, 2015, as well as copies of the purported notices, dated July 22, 2013. Although one of the notices contained a first-class mail 10-digit barcode, the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the letter was actually sent by first-class mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. In her affidavit, Benight stated that she could confirm that the notice was sent to the defendant on July 22, 2013. However, Benight did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing. Further, since she did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bank of America, N.A., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . To the extent that Benight relied upon a screenshot of a TrackRight Transaction Report, she failed to establish how or when the report was created, that it was made in the regular course of business, or that it was created soon after the notices were purportedly mailed to the defendant … . …

The plaintiff also attempted to establish standing through the submission of Benight’s affidavit, but this also was insufficient. Benight asserted that the original note was delivered to the plaintiff on September 7, 2004, and that the plaintiff had since remained in possession of the note. Benight, however, did not have personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s receipt of the note, did not attest that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, and also did not submit any admissible business records to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time this action was commenced … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Porfert, 2020 NY Slip Op 06083, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

, ,

THE 2008 FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED ON A DECEASED DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY WHICH DID NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREFORE, IS NOT TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was not time-barred. Although a foreclosure complaint was served in 2008, it named a deceased defendant and was therefore a nullity which did not accelerate the debt and start the statute of limitations running:

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the action as untimely because the 2008 action was commenced only against the decedent borrower and was thus a legal nullity. We agree. “The six-year statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action begins to run from the due date for each unpaid installment unless the debt has been accelerated; once the debt has been accelerated by a demand or commencement of an action, the entire sum becomes due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire mortgage” … . Accordingly, as a general rule, the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action triggers the statute of limitations … . As pertinent here, however, “[a] party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person, but must instead name the personal representative of the decedent’s estate” … . Greenpoint [Mortgage Funding] served but did not substitute the executor of decedent’s estate as a party in the 2008 action (see CPLR 1015 [a]). As such, the court lacked jurisdiction over the 2008 action, and that action was a legal nullity from its inception … . It follows that the 2008 action, a legal nullity, did not trigger the statute of limitations. Since this action was commenced within six years of the 2013 acceleration letter, the action was timely. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Stewart, 2020 NY Slip Op 05982, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted. The Third Department found that law office failure provided a reasonable excuse for the failure of the bank’s counsel to appear at the mandatory conference in this foreclosure action (22 NYCRR 202.27 (b)):

… [P]laintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear at the conference and the existence of a potentially meritorious claim … . A determination of reasonable excuse is left to the sound discretion of Supreme Court and will only be disturbed where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion … . In exercising this discretion, Supreme Court may accept law office failure as an excuse “where the claim of law office failure is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default” … . …

Counsel explained that he was on vacation in Europe on the day scheduled for the conference. When counsel realized this mistake, he contacted Supreme Court and requested to appear telephonically. Supreme Court accommodated this request and, according to counsel, offered to initiate the call. However, when counsel did not receive a telephone call at the scheduled time, he telephoned chambers, and was informed that defendants had not yet appeared. Counsel avers that he never received a follow-up telephone call from Supreme Court. Counsel also provided his telephone records showing the outgoing calls that he had made that morning to chambers and no incoming calls from Supreme Court. As such, plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for not appearing at the conference. U.S. Bank, N.A. v Clarkson, 2020 NY Slip Op 05994, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of defendant’s default was hearsay:

For evidence of default, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of a foreclosure manager employed by the plaintiff, wherein she attested, among other things, that the defendant defaulted under the loan in February 2011. By attesting that she was familiar with the record-making practices of her employer, that the records were made in the regular course of business, that it was the regular course of such business to make the record, and that the records were made “at or about the time of the event being recorded” … , the foreclosure manager satisfied the requirements for establishing a foundation for the admission of business records (see CPLR 4518[a] …). However, since the foreclosure manager failed to submit any of the business records upon which she contends she relied in making her affidavit, her averment as to the defendant’s purported default “‘constitute[s] inadmissible hearsay and lack[s] probative value'” … . As “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, [*2]that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … , and “a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … , the assertions by the foreclosure manager as to the contents of the records were “inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purport[ed] to describe were not submitted with her affidavit” … . Selene Fin., L.P. v Coleman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

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