You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

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

 

, ,

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

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

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of Ray Thacker, a vice president of the plaintiff, based upon his review of his employer’s records, which were attached thereto. However, Thacker’s affidavit contained no statement as to Thacker’s personal familiarity with the mailing practices of his employer … .

Moreover, although Thacker’s affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the business records which were attached thereto (see CPLR 4518[a] …), the content of those records did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed. The copies of letters addressed to the defendant, bearing 20-digit bar codes, were insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the certified mailing or first class mailing actually occurred … . The “Proof of Filing Statement” from the New York State Banking Department, pursuant to RPAPL 1306, reflecting a tracking number, a “Mailing Date Step 1” of May 16, 2012, and a “Filing Date Step 1” of May 17, 2012, also was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, the plaintiff’s compliance with all of the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v Gershfeld, 2020 NY Slip Op 05895, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

,

REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED UPON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been relied upon in this foreclosure action because the report was based on hearsay:

The referee relied on an affidavit sworn to October 2, 2018 by an assistant vice president of plaintiff’s loan servicer, who asserted that, according to the books and records of plaintiff pertaining to defendant’s loan and payment history, defendant had been in default since March 1, 2009, and owed plaintiff the amount stated. However, because the books and records themselves were not submitted to the court, the affiant’s assertions are inadmissible hearsay … . Nor did the affiant lay a foundation for the introduction of the books and records as a business record (see CPLR 4518[a]). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kirschenbaum, 2020 NY Slip Op 05849, First Dept 10-20-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and that the required notice of default was in fact mailed to the defendants by first-class mail, or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage as a condition precedent to foreclosure … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Buah, 2020 NY Slip Op 05722, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff (CV) did not provide the proof required by Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The version of RPAPL 1304(2) as it existed at the time this action was commenced, provided that, “[t]he notices required by this section shall contain a current list of at least five housing counseling agencies that serve the region where the borrower resides from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services” …

… CV failed to submit evidence to demonstrate that the 90-day notices contained either five housing agencies that served the region where the defendants resided or were from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services. …

Additionally, CV did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that the defendants were properly served pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, CV relied upon the affidavit of Matthew W. Regan, its executive vice president, who averred that 90-day notices were sent in accordance with the statute. In his affidavit, Regan referenced copies of 90-day notices, which, however, did not bear any postmark. Moreover, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices . . . standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . Also, Regan’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the required notices were sent in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as Regan did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notices, and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . CV XXVIII, LLC v Trippiedi, 2020 NY Slip Op 05721, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

,

THE REFEREE RELIED ON HEARSAY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OWED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence relied upon by the referee to determine the amount owed to plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

With respect to the amount due to the plaintiff, the referee based his findings on an affidavit of Jillian Thrasher, a vice president of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), the servicer of the subject loan. …

“A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” … . Here, Thrasher’s affidavit was insufficient to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a), because she failed to attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of her employer, Ocwen, the entity that generated the subject business records. Accordingly, she failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon in her affidavit were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … . Thus, Thrasher’s affidavit, upon which the referee relied, “constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value” on the issue of the amount due and owing to the plaintiff, including the amount of interest due for the relevant period … , and the Supreme Court erred in confirming the report. The error in relying on hearsay evidence was not harmless, as the referee’s determination is not substantially supported by other evidence in the record … . IndyMac Fed. Bank, FSB v Vantassell, 2020 NY Slip Op 05495, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

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