You are here: / Foreclosure
, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND RPAPL 1304; 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 bank failed to demonstrate the notice of default was provided in accordance with the mortgage agreement, failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and failed to demonstrate such compliance was not required:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with a condition precedent contained in the consolidated mortgage agreement, requiring the lender to send a notice of default prior to the commencement of the action. In this respect, the unsubstantiated and conclusory statements in the affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff’s servicer, which indicated that the required notice of default was sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage, combined with a copy of the notice of default, failed to show that the required notice was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the consolidated mortgage agreement … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it properly served upon the defendant the notice required by RPAPL 1304. The mailing required under that statute “‘is 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'” … . Here, the plaintiff proffered neither evidence of the actual mailings nor evidence of a standard office mailing procedure, but rather relied upon its servicer’s conclusory and unsubstantiated affidavit averring that the notice was sent, along with a copy of the notice. This evidence failed to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden … . Moreover, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, affidavits of service pertaining to the summons and complaint as well as the defendant’s verified answer, which demonstrated that the defendant was present in the State of Florida at the time of service of those pleadings, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the subject property was not the defendant’s “principal dwelling,” so as to establish that compliance with RPAPL 1304 was not required … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Negrin, 2020 NY Slip Op 05253, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, , , ,

LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH STANDING; PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT; OUT OF STATE AFFIDAVIT LACKED A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY; NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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. The lost note affidavit was insufficient to establish standing the proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient and the out of state affidavit lacked a certificate of conformity. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, however, was properly denied:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to proffer evidence establishing that the note was assigned to it, and the affidavit of lost note submitted in support of its motion failed to establish the facts that prevented the plaintiff from producing the original note (see UCC 3-804 …). We also note that the out-of-state affidavit from the vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo lacked a certificate of conformity as required by CPLR 2309(c), although such defect by itself would not be fatal to the plaintiff’s motion ,,, ,

… [A]lthough the plaintiff submitted a copy of the 90-day notice purportedly sent to the defendants, it failed to submit an affidavit of service or other proof of mailing establishing that it properly served them by registered or certified mail and first-class mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304 … . …

The defendants’ bare denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1304 notice, without more, was insufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Trust v Moneta, 2020 NY Slip Op 05181, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS INSUFFICIENT; 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 reply papers were properly considered but plaintiff did not submit sufficient proof that a condition precedent in the mortgage agreement, re: notice of default, was complied with:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the affidavit of the plaintiff’s employee Jeremiah Herberg, which was submitted with the plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion and in further support of its motion … . Although “‘[a] party moving for summary judgment generally cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply . . . , there are exceptions to the general rule, including . . . when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers'” … . Here, the defendant had the opportunity to address the Herberg affidavit in her reply papers in further support of her own cross motion.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in section 22 of the mortgage agreement regarding the notice of default. The plaintiff’s submissions did not establish that the notice was sent by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Furthermore, Herberg’s affidavit failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the plaintiff’s mailing of the notices of default (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v McKenzie, 2020 NY Slip Op 05086, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE IT TOOK ACTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (c) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence that it commenced proceedings to enter a default judgment within one year of the default. Therefore the bank had abandoned the action:

… [T]he plaintiff … relies upon two pages in the record. The first of those two pages is a “CamScanner” copy of the face sheet of a proposed order of reference reflecting the caption of this action, a blank line over the words “(ORD OF REF) FEE PAID,” and a pagination of “Page 1 of 2.” The page is devoid of markings that it was ever presented to any Justice of the Supreme Court as no name is written next to “Hon.” above the caption, and no presentment date is reflected in the blank spaces at the upper right-hand corner of the document where the date and month of presentments are typically identified. There is nothing that indicates that this document was ever filed with the court. The second “CamScanner” page relied upon by the plaintiff, delineated as “Page 2 of 2,” reflects what appears to be either a 2010 or 2019 date stamp, in an unreadable month and date, at 12:07 p.m., with two looping lines that may or may not be a penned signature. The date stamp does not identify it as being placed upon the document by any particular person, entity, or court, and does not contain the word “Filed.” Both of the pages relied upon by the plaintiff contain in their lower right-hand corners the notation “Printed: 10/5/20,” without a full readable year. No other pages comprising the purported proposed order of reference were provided, though the first page, which ends in mid-sentence, is clearly not the entirety of the document.

Since CPLR 3215(c) provides that courts “shall” dismiss actions as abandoned where the plaintiff fails to take proceedings within one year after a default “unless sufficient cause is shown,” the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed in this instance … . Here, the burden was not met. HSBC Mtge. Corp. v Hasan, 2020 NY Slip Op 05036, Second Dept. 9-23-20

 

, ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS NOT WARRANTED; NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate the sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint should have been granted:

… [I]n a status conference order … , the Court Attorney Referee … directed the plaintiff to file an application seeking an order of reference by the date of the final status conference. Following the final status conference … , the Court Attorney Referee … determined that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for its failure to move for an order of reference as directed, and recommended that the action be dismissed. … [T]he Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint. …

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . Indeed, at the time the plaintiff was directed to file an application for an order of reference, an order of reference, as well as a judgment of foreclosure and sale, had already been issued. Bank of N.Y. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05024, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements and, therefore, the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Defendant’s denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1394 notice, however, was not enough to warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant:

“‘Although not jurisdictional, proper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a residential foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition'” … . …

… [A]lthough the plaintiff submitted a copy of the 90-day notice purportedly sent to [defendant], the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or other proof of mailing by the post office establishing that the plaintiff properly sent the notice by registered or certified mail and first-class mail pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, or evidence 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, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . TD Bank, N.A. v Roberts, 2020 NY Slip Op 05074, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WARRANTED VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion and vacated the dismissal of this foreclosure action for plaintiff bank’s failure to appear at a scheduled conference (22 NYCRR 202.27):

“22 NYCRR 202.27 gives a court the discretion to dismiss an action where [a] plaintiff fails to appear at any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference” … . “To vacate a dismissal under 22 NYCRR 202.27, it [is] incumbent upon [a] plaintiff to provide a reasonable excuse for his [or her] failure to appear and to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . “A motion to vacate a prior judgment or order is addressed to the court’s sound discretion, subject to reversal only where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion” … .

Here, plaintiff’s counsel explained that, due to a scheduling error, the assigned attorney actually appeared in court on the conference date but missed the calendar call. Law office failure may constitute a reasonable excuse for an appearance default …  Given the isolated nature of this nonappearance, we find that Supreme Court acted within its discretion in reconsidering and vacating the default dismissal … . Notably, plaintiff supported its vacatur motion with a duly executed affidavit of merit from its representative. We further recognize that plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action, as we affirmed the award of summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor … . Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the court acted within its discretion in granting the motion to vacate. Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Mazzone, 2020 NY Slip Op 05011, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY DID NOT RELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF OF THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that defendant had filed for bankruptcy did not relieve the plaintiff in this foreclosure action from the obligation to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, among other things, the affidavit of Kyle Lukas, a Senior Loan Analyst for … the purported parent company of the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Lukas averred that a 90-day notice was not required to be sent to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304(3) due to the defendant’s bankruptcy filing … . In addition, while the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, copies of the note and mortgage, the pleadings, and the notice of default, it did not submit any documentation evidencing service of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the defendant previously filed for bankruptcy protection did not relieve the plaintiff of its obligation to send the RPAPL 1304 notice to her prior to commencing the action … . Accordingly, since the plaintiff did not demonstrate its strict compliance with the statute, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Mastr Adjustable Rate Mtges. Trust 2007-1 v Joseph, 2020 NY Slip Op 04935, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the judge should not have, sua sponte, vacated the judgment of foreclosure as against those defendants who did not move for that relief:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . “[T]he defense of lack of jurisdiction based on improper service is personal in nature and may only be raised by the party improperly served'” … . Here, Hickson was the only defendant who moved to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court had no basis to, sua sponte, vacate so much of the judgment of foreclosure and sale as was against the defendants other than Hickson and to direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants for lack personal jurisdiction. Lehman Bros. Bank v Hickson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04932, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED WITHIN THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not prove the debt had been de-accelerated and therefore did not demonstrate the foreclosure action was not time-barred. It was not demonstrated that the stipulation of discontinuance affirmatively revoked the initial acceleration of the debt:

“A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … .

Here, there is no evidence in the record of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period following the initiation of the 2008 foreclosure action … . The only evidence submitted by the plaintiff to establish its affirmative act of revocation was a printout of the Queens County Clerk Minutes, showing that a stipulation of discontinuance and a consent to cancel the lis pendens were filed in the 2008 foreclosure action on July 1, 2013. The plaintiff did not submit a copy of the stipulation of discontinuance. A stipulation of discontinuance will not, by itself, constitute an affirmative act of revocation where the stipulation is silent on the issue of the election to accelerate, and does not otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments from the defendant … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hussain, 2020 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

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