You are here: / Foreclosure
,

THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted copies of both its RPAPL 1304 notice and the 30-day notice of default required by the mortgage agreement. Both notices were dated April 15, 2013; however, these notices contained a factual discrepancy regarding the cure date, to wit, the cure date stated in the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice was May 15, 2013, whereas the cure date stated in the 30-day notice was May 20, 2013. Given the factual inaccuracy contained in at least one of the notices, and because the potential inaccuracy in the 90-day notice involved information that was required under RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff’s submissions did not eliminate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the RPAPL 1304 notice was defective on its face … . Sparta GP Holding Reo Corp. v Lynch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04803, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN 2010 WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STARTED WAS REVOKED BEFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank raised a question of the fact whether the acceleration of the debt at the time the foreclosure action was commenced in 2010 was revoked before the six-year statute of limitations ran out:

We nevertheless agree with plaintiff that its submissions in opposition to the motion raised a question of fact whether the present action was timely commenced. It is well settled that “[a] lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, [although] 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, plaintiff submitted evidence that its predecessor in interest mailed letters to defendants in January 2016, i.e., before the statute of limitations expired, revoking the prior acceleration of the mortgage. As plaintiff correctly contends, the evidence, including an affidavit of mailing, established that the letters were properly mailed to defendants at their address, thereby giving rise to the presumption that the letters were received by defendants … . Defendants’ unsubstantiated denial of receipt was “insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service at the address where all notices under the mortgage were to be sent” … . Moreover, on the limited record before us, we conclude that language of the letters and the surrounding circumstances raised a question of fact whether plaintiff’s predecessor in interest validly revoked the prior acceleration of the mortgage and, thus, whether the present action was timely commenced … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04653, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, ,

BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this foreclosure action because compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated:

RPAPL 1304 provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in the statute, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. The statute 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 (see RPAPL 1304[2]). “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … “and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . Here, although the plaintiff provided a photocopy of a “US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail” with a 20-digit number along with the purported 90-day notice, the receipt is undated and does not demonstrate that the notice was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. The plaintiff also failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the notice was sent by first-class mail. M&T Bank v Barter, 2020 NY Slip Op 04548, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

, ,

THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE BANK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this foreclosure action. There was a question of fact whether plaintiff complied with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1303, and plaintiff did not establish it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [D]efendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the RPAPL 1303 notice was in the proper form, as he asserted in his affidavit that the notice with which he was served “was on white colored paper, the same color papers as the summons and complaint and the heading entitled Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure’ was smaller than twenty-point type” … .

… [T]he affidavit of Lorene Alford Marsh, an Assistant Vice President of the plaintiff, was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. Although Marsh attested that the 90-day notices of default were sent to the defendant by certified mail and first-class mail on March 8, 2013, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailings actually occurred … . Nor did Marsh attest that she had personal knowledge of the mailing practices of her employer at the time the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly were sent. Instead, she merely stated that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s procedures for creating and maintaining notices mailed in connection with the loan. Moreover, rather than establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, Marsh, in her affidavit, merely described the mailing requirements listed in the statute … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Lauro, 2020 NY Slip Op 04531, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS OPPOSITION TO THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD ORIGINALLY ALLEGED IT POSSESSED THE NOTE AND THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; SUBSEQUENTLY THE BANK SUBMITTED A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew his opposition to the bank’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this foreclosure action. In support of its summary judgment motion the bank alleged it had standing based upon possession of the note. However, in support of the bank’s subsequent motion to confirm the referee’s report the bank submitted a lost note affidavit:

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]), and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]).

Here, in support of his cross motion for leave to renew, the borrower had a reasonable justification for his failure to present the new facts in opposition to the original motion, since the plaintiff had previously—and unequivocally—represented that the original note was in Investors’ possession, and only later disclosed that the original note had in fact been lost, without providing any further details as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, and when the note was lost … .

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the borrower’s cross motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the borrower, to strike his answer and counterclaims, and for an order of reference, based on unresolved issues of fact regarding the plaintiff’s standing … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Barbery, 2020 NY Slip Op 04377, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Supreme Court properly found that the bank did not provide sufficient proof that the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 notice was mailed to defendant. But defendant’s mere denial of receipt of the notice was not enough to warrant summary judgment in defendant’s favor:

The plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice, because “the plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by an individual with personal knowledge of that procedure” … .

We disagree, however, with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant [defendant] Parker’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Parker offered only a mere denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1304 notice in support of her cross motion, and such a mere denial is insufficient to establish entitlement to such relief … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Parker, 2020 NY Slip Op 04376, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

,

REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed. The report was based upon hearsay provided by the bank and therefore the referee’s findings were not supported by the record:

The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to confirm the referee’s report and for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer, who attested, based upon his review of the servicer’s books and records, to the amount due under the mortgage loan. However, the plaintiff’s affiant failed to annex or otherwise produce the subject business records. Under the circumstances, the affidavit relied upon by the plaintiff constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value, and the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Fontana, 2020 NY Slip Op 04375, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THE ENTIRE DEBT TIME-BARRED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED; IF SO, ONLY THOSE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE START OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ARE RECOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action on the entire debt was time-barred, but there was a question of fact whether the debt was de-accelerated such that the installment payments due during the six years prior to the commencement of the action were recoverable by the plaintiff bank (Chase):

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that the six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]) began to run on July 7, 2009, when Chase accelerated the mortgage debt and commenced the prior foreclosure action … . Since the plaintiff did not commence the instant foreclosure action until more than six years later, on January 28, 2016, the defendants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the action was untimely … .

… [T]he plaintiff tendered evidence that, in May 2015, it sent letters to each of the defendants that purported to de-accelerate the entire debt … . However, such evidence is sufficient only to raise a question of fact as to whether those causes of action that sought unpaid installments which accrued within the six-year period of limitations preceding the commencement of this action (see CPLR 213[4] …) are barred by the statute of limitations due to this alleged de-acceleration by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to tender any evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that the statute of limitations bars the causes of action relating to unpaid mortgage installments which accrued on or before January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss those causes of action. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Miele, 2020 NY Slip Op 04422, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

, ,

HEARSAY DID NOT PROVE BANK HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by plaintiff bank to establish standing in this foreclosure action was inadmissible hearsay:

“… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc. (hereinafter Seterus), which purports to be a subservicer for the Federal National Mortgage Association as assignee of the plaintiff as assignee of OneWest. The affidavit constitutes inadmissible hearsay, as the foreclosure specialist did not attest that he had personal knowledge of OneWest’s business practices and procedures … , or that any records provided by OneWest were incorporated into Seterus’s own records … , and also did not submit any documents to show that OneWest possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Since the foreclosure specialist also failed to establish a foundation to show that he had personal knowledge as to whether OneWest possessed the note prior to commencement of the action (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the plaintiff failed to establish its standing. The documents attached to the affirmation of counsel for the plaintiff are inadmissible hearsay as counsel failed to establish a foundation for admission of such documents as business records and the foreclosure specialist’s affidavit does not reference the records attached to counsel’s affirmation … . Moreover, even if a proper foundation for the admissibility of the business records had been established, the submitted documents do not show that OneWest had ownership of and the right to enforce the note at the time of the commencement of the action … . The plaintiff also failed to show OneWest’s standing based upon a purported written assignment of the mortgage from MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration system] to OneWest, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate that MERS had the authority to assign the note …”. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Schacker, 2020 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS DID NOT REBUT THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS OF PROPER SERVICE AND MAILING OF THE SUMMONS, COMPLAINT AND REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1303 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the foreclosure action on the ground defendants were never served should not have been granted:

… [T]he affidavit of service contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Simone Cohen at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, by delivering to her the summons, complaint, and notice required by RPAPL 1303 at the subject property. The affidavit of service included a description of Simone Cohen. Another affidavit of service of the same process server contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Avi Cohen by delivering a copy of the relevant papers to “SIMONE COHEN (WIFE),” a person of suitable age and discretion, at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, at the subject property, “[s]aid premises being the Defendant’s dwelling place within the State of New York,” and described Simone Cohen as above. The process server further averred that on March 4, 2009, he mailed those documents to Avi Cohen at the address of the subject property “by depositing a true copy of the same in a postpaid, properly addressed envelope in a[n] official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office.” Two additional affidavits of service recited that on March 4, 2009, copies of the summons were mailed to each defendant at the subject property.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendants’ submissions failed to rebut the affidavit of service, since they stated only that Simone Cohen could not have been present at the time of the alleged service since she picked up her children from school every Tuesday and that she could not have understood or answered the process server’s questions or understood the import of the legal papers since she was not proficient in English. The defendants’ conclusory and unsubstantiated submissions did not rebut the sworn allegation that a person fitting the physical description of Simone Cohen was present at the residence at the time and accepted service … . Moreover, Avi Cohen did not deny that he received the papers in the mail and thus did not overcome the inference of proper mailing that arose from the affidavit of service … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cohen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04312, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

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