You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEDENT; DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE HERSELF AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined decedent’s estate was a necessary party in this foreclosure action and defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute herself as administrator should have been granted:

In a mortgage foreclosure action, “[t]he rule is that a mortgagor who has made an absolute conveyance of all his [or her] interest in the mortgaged premises, including his equity of redemption, is not a necessary party to foreclosure, unless a deficiency judgment is sought” … . Here, the judgment of foreclosure and sale contains language providing for a potential deficiency judgment against the decedent if the sale of the property does not cover the amount due to the plaintiff. Consequently, the decedent’s estate was a necessary party to the action … . Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC v Kalinin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07417, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

,

THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE INVALID; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank’s motion to leave to enter a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The lost note affidavits were invalid:

Pursuant to UCC 3-804, “[t]he owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his [or her] own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his [or her] ownership, the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and its terms.”

Here, although the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence establishing that it was the owner and holder of the note and establishing the note’s terms, the lost note affidavits submitted by the plaintiff failed to establish the facts that prevent the production of the original note … . Neither affidavit identifies who conducted the search for the lost note or explains “when or how the note was lost” … . Capital One, N.A. v Gokhberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 07345, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted because the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“In a residential foreclosure action, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of material issues as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304” … . RPAPL 1304(1) 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.” “The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower” … . Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . Proof of the requisite mailings “can be established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . …

… [W]ith respect to the mailing by first-class mail, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . As to Babik’s [the loan servicer’s employee’s] affidavit, not only did Babik “not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing [or] set forth any details regarding … [the loan servicer’s] mailing practices or procedures” … , she did not aver that a 90-day notice was sent in accordance with the statute … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Hershkowitz, 2020 NY Slip Op 07427, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prohibition against successive summary judgment motions applied and the second motion should have been denied:

“Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” … . “Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion” … . “Rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means” … . “Successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment” … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Carpenter, 2020 NY Slip Op 07426, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

PURPORTED MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVIVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PURCHASERS OF THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY OR THE BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE SECURED BY THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined mortgage payments allegedly made after the expiration of the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action did not revive the statute of limitations as against defendants, who purchased the encumbered property, and defendant bank which issued a mortgage secured by the property:

… [T]he tolling or revival effect of partial payments differs as between the payor — the Gureckis — and subsequent purchasers — defendants (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2]). [A] qualifying partial payment that is made before the expiration of the statute of limitations will renew the statute of limitations against any subsequent purchaser (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2] [2d par] .. ). In contrast, a qualifying partial payment that is made after the expiration of the statute of limitations will only revive the statute of limitations as to a subsequent purchaser who did not give value or who had actual notice of the making of the payment … . Here, … at the time that [the payments] were made the statute of limitations had expired. Given that the record is clear that defendants are purchasers for value and plaintiff put forth no evidence that defendants had actual notice of the … payments, the payments did not have the effect of reviving the statute of limitations as to defendants (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2] …). Gurecki v Gurecki, 2020 NY Slip Op 07257, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s foreclosure action, sua sponte, as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Supreme Court, after plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed the plaintiff to “submit judgment.” When plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment for signature, Supreme Court dismissed the action because the proposed judgment was not submitted within 60 days. The 60-day time limit only applies when a party is directed to submit the judgment “on notice:”

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48, an order or judgment which is directed to be settled or submitted on notice must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order or judgment be settled or submitted. A party who fails to submit the order or judgment within the 60-day time period will be deemed to have abandoned the action or motion, absent good cause shown … . In this case, when the Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, it did not direct that the proposed judgment had to be settled or submitted on notice. 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where, as here, the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice … . James B. Nutter & Co. v McLaughlin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07178, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank (Wilmington) did not demonstrate defendants’ default in this foreclosure action and the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Wilmington failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it failed to submit evidence demonstrating the defendants’ default in payment … . In support of the motion, Wilmington submitted … copies of the note and the mortgage, and the affidavit of Angela Farmer, a vice president of Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC (hereinafter Rushmore), the servicer of the loan. Based on her review of business records in the possession of Rushmore, including records created by Ditech [the original plaintiff, note was transferred to Wilmington], Farmer averred that the defendants defaulted in payment in June 2013. While Farmer established that she was familiar with Ditech’s recordkeeping practices and procedures, no payment records were proffered with the motion. The only business records annexed and incorporated in the affidavit with regard to the default were two notices of default both dated October 24, 2013 … . “‘[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” … . Wilmington Sav. Fund, FSB v Peters, 020 NY Slip Op 07248, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

THE BANK’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and the bank’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

“Although the foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “‘[E]vidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records themselves are introduced'” … . Without submission of the business records, a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). Here, Herberg’s [bank’s vice president’s] assertion, in effect, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note when it commenced the action appears to be based upon unproduced business records or upon confirmation of information from some other unproduced source, and is therefore not probative on the issue of the plaintiff’s standing … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Atedgi, 2020 NY Slip Op 07247, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (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. The bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the notice of default requirements of the mortgage, and standing to bring the action. Evidence submitted in reply papers should not have been considered:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of DiMario Abrams, a vice president for the plaintiff’s loan servicer, as well as copies of the notices and the envelopes in which the notices were allegedly mailed. Abrams did not purport to have personal knowledge of the actual mailing of the notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304, he did not purport to have personal knowledge of the mailing procedures utilized by the plaintiff’s loan servicer, and he did not lay a proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule with respect to the notices and envelopes attached to his affidavit … . * * *

The plaintiff submitted a lost note affidavit prepared by Dereje D. Badada, a vice president for its loan servicer. According to that affidavit, the note had “been inadvertently lost, misplaced or destroyed,” and the loan servicer had “not pledged, assigned, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of the note.” There was no allegation in the lost note affidavit that the note had ever been delivered or assigned to the plaintiff, nor were there any details regarding when or how the note was lost, who searched for the note, or when they searched for the note. Therefore, the lost note affidavit did not establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note or the facts preventing it from producing the note (see UCC 3-804 …). U.S. Bank N.A. v Kohanov, 2020 NY Slip Op 07242, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION CAN BE REMEDIED BY A MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER AND BY RAISING THE DEFENSE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Miller, explained the relationship between the waiver provisions in  CPLR 3211 (e) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1302-a in foreclosure proceedings. The opinion includes a detailed discussion of when defenses are waived by the failure to include them in the answer and when and how such omissions can be remedied by a motion to amend or in a summary judgment motion. The opinion is much too detailed to be summarized here and should be consulted as authoritative on these issues. The narrow issue addressed by the opinion is the effect of failing to raise the defense of a lack of standing in the answer to a foreclosure complaint:

… [W]e now reaffirm that a waiver of the defense of standing pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) should be given the same force and effect as a waiver of the affirmative defenses specifically enumerated in CPLR 3211(a)(3) and (5) … . Accordingly, a waiver of the affirmative defense of standing pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) may be retracted through the amendment of a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025 … . Case law from this Court should not be read to hold otherwise … . * * *

Where applicable, RPAPL 1302-a places the defense of standing on a footing comparable with the other defenses that are exempt from the waiver provisions of CPLR 3211(e), to wit, those defenses listed in subdivisions CPLR 3211(a)(2), (7), and (10), which may be raised by motion “at any time” … , or by amendment to a pleading, “if one is permitted” (CPLR 3211[e]; see CPL 3025[b]). Even where the defense of standing is omitted from a defendant’s answer in violation of CPLR 3018(b), the defense may be raised for the first time in opposition to a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment … . GMAC Mtge., LLC v Coombs, 2020 NY Slip Op 07039, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

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