You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANKS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action and compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. Although the employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer stated in her affidavit, which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note, she never stated that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced … . Further, the plaintiff failed to establish that the note was attached to the complaint at the time of the commencement of the action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 because the employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, in her affidavit, failed to assert personal knowledge of the purported mailing or make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures in order to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Palacio, 2020 NY Slip Op 05480, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

, ,

THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A BORROWER IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE ARREARS AND STOP THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPEDE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WHEN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS STARTED; THE DEBT HERE WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN 2009 RENDERING THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, agreeing with the Second Department, determined the mere presence of reinstatement clause in a mortgage, which allows a borrower who has missed payments to pay the amount of the missed payments and resume monthly payments, does not affect or impede the acceleration of the debt when a foreclosure action is brought. Therefore the foreclosure action at issue was time-barred:

The mortgage is a uniform instrument issued by Fannie Mae, among others, for use in New York State and contains several provisions that are relevant on appeal. Section 22 (acceleration provision) permits the lender to require immediate payment of the loan in full upon the borrower’s default, provided certain conditions are met. Section 19 (reinstatement provision) grants a borrower in default the right to effectively de-accelerate the maturity of the mortgage debt by paying in full the past due amount, thereby returning the loan to its pre-default status. * * *

… [W]e conclude that the mortgage’s reinstatement provision does not in any way affect or impede acceleration of the full mortgage debt. The reinstatement provision is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the mortgage’s acceleration provision, which governs when Fannie Mae could exercise its option to accelerate the full debt … . Further, the language of the reinstatement provision “indicates that [Fannie Mae’s] right to accelerate the entire debt may be exercised before the [borrower’s] rights under the reinstatement provision . . . are exercised or extinguished” … . Thus, in effect, the reinstatement provision merely “gives the borrower the contractual option to de-accelerate the mortgage when certain conditions are met” … —which presupposes that an acceleration has already occurred. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Tortora, 2020 NY Slip Op 05410, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, , ,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-105, NOT 17-101, APPLIES TO THE REVIVAL OF AN EXPIRED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE; THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HERE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 17-105; FORECLOSURE WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, determined that General Obligations Law 17-105, not 17-101, applied to the revival of an expired statute of limitations for foreclosure of a mortgage and the documents in this case did not meet the criteria of section 17-105. Therefore the foreclosure action was time-barred. The court noted that Supreme Court should have issued a judgment declaring the rights of the parties pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law 1501 and 1521:

General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) provides, in relevant part:

“A waiver of the expiration of the time limited for commencement of an action to foreclose a mortgage of real property or a mortgage of a lease of real property, or a waiver of the time that has expired, or a promise not to plead the expiration of the time limited, or not to plead the time that has expired, or a promise to pay the mortgage debt, if made after the accrual of a right of action to foreclose the mortgage and made, either with or without consideration, by the express terms of a writing signed by the party to be charged is effective, subject to any conditions expressed in the writing, to make the time limited for commencement of the action run from the date of the waiver or promise.”

* * *

… [T]the financial statements submitted by defendant do not meet the requirements of subdivision (1) of section 17-105 because those documents merely list the mortgage as a liability and do not constitute an express promise to pay the mortgage debt … . Batavia Townhouses, Ltd. v Council of Churches Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05331, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, ,

CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (4) MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM, NOT BY A MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501 (4) should not have been granted. That relief must be sought by an action or counterclaim:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the motion which was to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4), since that relief must be sought in an action or counterclaim and not by motion … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v 11 Bayberry St., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05175,  Second Dept 9-30-20

, ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; THE REFEREE RELIED ON HEARSAY AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed.  The evidence of default presented to the referee was hearsay and the referee did not hold a hearing on notice as required by CPLR 4320:

… [W]ith respect to the amount due to the plaintiff, the referee based his findings on the affidavit of Nicholas J. Raab, an employee of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, the plaintiff’s loan servicing agent for the subject loan. While Raab provided a proper foundation for the admission of business records made by a prior servicer … , he failed to attach the business records themselves to his affidavit. Accordingly, Raab’s assertions regarding the date of the defendant’s default in making her mortgage payments, the total sum due to the plaintiff, which included the amount of accrued interest calculated from the date of default, and amounts purportedly paid in an escrow advance and for property preservation, without the business records themselves, constituted inadmissible hearsay … .

… [T]he referee should not have computed the amount due to the plaintiff without holding a hearing on notice to the defendant (see CPLR 4313 …). “While [the] Supreme Court has the authority to engage a Referee to compute and report the amount due under a mortgage (see, RPAPL 1321[1]), and can, in its order of reference, define the scope of the reference and delineate the Referee’s powers and duties thereunder (CPLR 4311), absent any specified restrictions the Referee has those powers and duties delineated in CPLR article 43 and also must comply with the procedures specified therein … . One of the specified procedures is the conducting of a hearing (CPLR 4320[a]), upon notice (CPLR 4313)” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yesmin, 2020 NY Slip Op 05257, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, , ,

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

 

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