You are here: / Foreclosure
,

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

 

,

ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTER AN ‘INFORMAL APPEARANCE’ IN AN ACTION WHICH WILL AVOID A DEFAULT, THE APPEARANCE MUST BE MADE WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMITS; THE PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed the default judgment granted to plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action. The court rejected the argument that defendant (Hall) had entered a valid “Informal appearance:”

It is true that “[i]n addition to the formal appearances listed in CPLR 320(a), the law continues to recognize the so-called informal’ appearance” … . “It comes about when the defendant, although not having taken any of the steps that would officially constitute an appearance under CPLR 320(a), nevertheless participates in the case in some way relating to the merits” … .

Although “an informal appearance can prevent a finding that the defendant is in default, thereby precluding entry of a default judgment” … , this is only true when the participation constituting the informal appearance occurred within the time limitations imposed for making a formal appearance … . Indeed, even service of a formal “notice of appearance will not protect the defendant from entry of a default judgment if, after service of the complaint, the defendant does not timely make a CPLR 3211 motion or serve an answer” … . Accordingly, an informal appearance, without more, does not somehow absolve a defendant from complying with the time restrictions imposed by CPLR 320(a) which govern the service of an answer or the making of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 04292, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (US Bank’s) motion to dismiss the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) should not have been granted in this foreclosure action. Plaintiff had moved for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default but then withdrew the motion:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . “As long as the plaintiff has initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year of the default, there is no basis for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . Moreover, ” the withdrawal of the plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference [does] not demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to initiate proceedings for entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of US Bank’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned, because the plaintiff moved for an order of reference within one year of US Bank’s default … . “In such cases, the complaint should not be dismissed, even if, as here, the plaintiff’s motion is later withdrawn'” … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Wessen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04141, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant in this foreclosure action brought by a foreign corporation did not demonstrate the corporation was doing business in New York without authorization. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on that ground should not have been granted:

“Business Corporation Law § 1312(a) constitutes a bar to the maintenance of an action by a foreign corporation found to be doing business in New York without . . . the required authorization to do business there” … . “The purpose of that section is to regulate foreign corporations which are doing business’ within the State, not . . . to enable the avoidance of contractual obligations” … . “[T]he party relying upon this statutory barrier bears the burden of proving that the corporation’s business activities in New York were not just casual or occasional, but so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in the jurisdiction”… . “[A]bsent proof establishing that the [subject corporation] is doing business in New York, it is presumed that [it] is doing business in [the] State of incorporation, and not in New York” … .

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that “[the appellant] conducted continuous activities in [New York] essential to its corporate business” … . Therefore, “the presumption that [the appellant] does business, not in New York but in its State of incorporation has not been overcome” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Didato, 2020 NY Slip Op 03903, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT ABSENT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed in the absence of a hearing on notice to the property owner, TEP:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have confirmed the referee’s report in the absence of a hearing on notice to TEP (see CPLR 4313 …). Although the notice accompanying the plaintiff’s proposed referee’s oath notified TEP of the due date for the submission of documents to the referee, it did not indicate that the submission of such papers would be in lieu of a hearing … . Further, the Supreme Court erred in rejecting TEP’s contention, raised in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, that ” [t]he referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records'” … . Moreover, the referee’s report also failed to identify any documents or other sources upon which the referee based her finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Tigani, 2020 NY Slip Op 03901, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank (US Bank) did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

A plaintiff has standing to maintain a mortgage foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced … . Here, the plaintiff established that Chase had possession of the note at issue at the time this action was commenced. However, the plaintiff failed to establish that Chase had the authority to act on its behalf at that time … . US Bank N.A. v Cusati, 2020 NY Slip Op 03943, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WHICH IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and did not demonstrate defendant defaulted. The decision illustrates the level of strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 which is required by the courts:

The version of RPAPL 1304(2) as it existed at that time required that the 90-day notice provide a list of five housing counseling agencies “that serve the region where the borrower resides.” …

… Here, the notice prepared by the plaintiff listed, as one of the required five housing counseling agencies, an agency located more than 300 miles away from the defendants’ residence. … [I]t is the plaintiff’s burden, on its motion for summary judgment, to demonstrate its strict compliance with the applicable provisions of RPAPL 1304. By failing to submit evidence that the Watertown agency served the region wherein the defendants resided, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and thus its motion for such relief should have been denied … . …

Additionally, the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff for the purpose of demonstrating that it properly served its 90-day notice did not specify that the notice was served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice (see RPAPL 1304 [2]). While the plaintiff attempted to remedy this deficiency in its reply papers, even assuming that its reply affidavit may properly be considered … , that affidavit contained only a conclusory assertion that the mailing was done in a separate envelope, with no assertion by the affiant that she had any personal knowledge of the actual mailing or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment. While the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff made the requisite showing that the affiant was familiar with the plaintiff’s recordkeeping practices and procedures with respect to the defendants’ payment history, the affiant failed to submit any business record substantiating the alleged default. Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value … . USBank N.A. v Haliotis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03819, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff loan services company (Aurora/Nationstar) did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 13O4 and 1306. Therefore, Aurora’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The court, noting that “lack of notice’ may be raised at any time, explained defendant did not waive the “lack of notice” defense because defendant denied the plaintiff’s complaint-allegations of compliance and raised the issue in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Second Department further found defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because “lack of notice” was not demonstrated as a matter of law. The decision provides a valuable explanation of the proof requirements for compliance with RPAPL 1304 and 1306:

In support of its motions, Aurora submitted the affidavit of Jerrell Menyweather, a document execution specialist employed by Nationstar, along with a copy of a 90-day notice addressed to the defendant, and a proof of filing statement pursuant to RPAPL 1306 from the New York State Banking Department. Although Menyweather stated in the affidavit that the RPAPL notices were sent to the defendant at her last known address and the subject property, Menyweather did not have personal knowledge of the mailing, and Aurora failed to provide any documents to prove that the notices were actually mailed … . Aurora also failed to submit a copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notices were sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute … . Furthermore, Menyweather did not aver that he was familiar with Aurora’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Matles, 2020 NY Slip Op 03793, 7-8-20

 

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