You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES AND DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE ATTACHED BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS PROPERLY MAILED, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure, determined the plaintiff did not prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure, a condition precedent for foreclosure. The affidavit did not demonstrate the affiant had personal knowledge of the relevant mailing procedures and did not provide an adequate foundation for relevant business records:

… [T]he affidavits submitted in support of Bank of America’s second motion … for summary judgment on the complaint … did not establish the affiants’ personal knowledge of the standard office mailing procedures of LenderLive, the third-party vendor that apparently sent the RPAPL 1304 notices on behalf of Bank of America … . The affidavits also “failed to address the nature of [Bank of America’s] relationship with LenderLive and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into [Bank of America’s] own records or routinely relied upon in its business” … . Bank of America thus “failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive” … .. Accordingly, Bank of America failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of Bank of America’s second motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference. U.S. Bank N.A. v Bravo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02953, Second Dept 5-14-25

Same issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2025 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Any affidavit submitted by the bank in a foreclosure action to prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure must demonstrate the affiant’s personal knowledge of the mailing procedures and must lay a foundation for the admissibility of any business records relied upon to prove proper mailing.

 

,

A PROPER FOUNDATION WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOME BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to confirm the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should have been denied. A proper foundation had not been provided for the admissibility of some of the business records relied upon by the referee:

Generally, the report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record … . Here, the referee computed the amount due to the plaintiff based upon the affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff and certain business records. Although the affiant purported to have personal knowledge of the amounts due and owing on the loan, she averred that this was based upon her review of the plaintiff’s records. “[A] review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge” … . The affiant also failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of all of the business records relied upon (see CPLR 4518[a]). “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, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due on the note were premised upon a payment history beginning in 2009. The plaintiff, however, did not acquire the note until 2013. The plaintiff’s affiant failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the records from 2009 to 2013 … , and, therefore, the referee’s report was not substantially supported by the record. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 02789, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Reversals in foreclosure proceedings often stem from the failure to provide a proper foundation for the admissibility of business records relied upon by the parties and/or the referee.​

 

, ,

THE DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS NOT AN EXPRESS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION DID NOT VALIDLY ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE, HERE, THE 2013 FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred. The bank’s argument that the the foreclosure complaint filed in 2013 did not accelerate the debt was rejected. The 2013 action was dismissed in 2018 because the bank did not comply with the notice of default requirement in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304. That dismissal did not constitute an express judicial finding that the debt had not been validly accelerated when the 2013 complaint was filed:

Deutsche Bank’s argument that the complaint in the 2013 action did not constitute a valid acceleration of the debt is precluded by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (hereinafter FAPA) … . FAPA amended CPLR 213(4) to provide that in an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage, “a defendant shall be estopped from asserting that the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action upon the instrument has not expired because the instrument was not validly accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated” … . Here, the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint in the 2013 action upon a determination that Deutsche Bank failed to establish … its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The mailing of a RPAPL 1304 notice, while a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, is not a precondition for acceleration of the debt … , and thus, the 2013 action was not dismissed upon an expressed judicial determination that the debt was not validly accelerated. Brennan v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 2025 NY Slip Op 02308, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: A foreclosure action is time-barred six years after the debt was accelerated by the filing of the complaint, unless there is an express judicial determination that the filing of the complaint did not accelerate the debt. A dismissal of the foreclosure action based upon the bank’s failure to comply with the RPAPL 1304 notice of default requirements is not an express judicial determination that the foreclosure complaint did not validly accelerate the debt. Therefore, in this case, the 2013 foreclosure action, which was dismissed in 2018 for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, is time-barred.

 

, , ,

THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION CONSTITUTED A FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing to foreclose. The note was endorsed in blank, meaning that it was payable to any bearer of the instrument. Therefore the plaintiff was required to show possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. The evidence submitted was insufficient:

Despite being the originator of the note, the record fails to demonstrate whether plaintiff reacquired the note prior to commencement of this action in order to satisfy its moving burden. Plaintiff’s reliance on JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Venture (148 AD3d 1269, 1270-1271 [3d Dept 2017]) is misplaced. Although the type of indorsement was not identified in the decision that was handed down, we take judicial notice of the record filed in that matter and confirm that the note annexed to the complaint in Venture contained a special indorsement payable to only plaintiff … . This is materially different than here, where the note was indorsed in blank, meaning it was payable to any bearer of the instrument (see UCC 1-201 [b] [21] [B]), therefore requiring plaintiff to perform the additional step of proving possession at the time of commencement … . Neither the moving attorney affirmation nor the affidavit of merit for the loan servicer/attorney-in-fact are sufficient to do so. We further reject plaintiff’s contention that the complaint was sufficient to establish possession of the note at commencement, as the complaint contained conflicting allegations and was unverified, and therefore it lacked the evidentiary value to support such claim … . United Wholesale Mtge., LLC v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 02117, Third Dept 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof required to demonstrate a note, endorsed in blank, was possessed by the plaintiff at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. If the defendant raises plaintiff’s lack of standing as an issue, the plaintiff must prove possession at commencement in order to proceed.​

 

,

HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined the bank’s (mortgagee’s) counterclaims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, an equitable lien and an equitable mortgage should have been dismissed. The bank was seeking reimbursement for costs associated with maintaining the mortgaged property which had allegedly been abandoned. Essentially, the Second Department held that the existence of the mortgage agreement, a contract, precluded recovery on the equitable theories, even though two of the three parties did not sign the mortgage agreement:

On September 6, 2005, the defendant Gladys Villa (hereinafter the borrower) executed a note that was secured by a mortgage on residential property located in Ossining (hereinafter the property). By bargain and sale deed dated March 8, 2006, the borrower retained a one-third interest in the premises for herself and conveyed the remaining interest to the plaintiffs, Miguel Auquilla and Hilda Guzman (hereinafter together the owners), as tenants in common. The borrower and the owners allegedly defaulted on their obligations under the note and the mortgage by failing to make the monthly payments due in December 2009, and thereafter. * * *

The mortgagee’s theory that the mortgage agreement does not govern the dispute since it was executed by the borrower and not by the owners is a novel one in this Court, but is ultimately unpersuasive. Although this Court has not explicitly recognized such a rule in this context, we now hold that there can be no quasi contract claim by a mortgagee against a third-party nonsignatory owner of property encumbered by a mortgage, the terms of which covers the subject matter of the dispute. Auquilla v Villa, 2025 NY Slip Op 02053, Second Dept 4-9-25

Practice Point: Where there is a contract which binds both signatories and third-party nonsignatories, quasi-contractual theories of recovery are not available.

 

,

WHERE IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE BEFORE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; HERE THE FAILURE TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE RENDERED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined it had been more than a year since defendant Callahan had failed to answer the complaint and, therefore, Callahan was entitled to notice before a default judgment could be entered. No notice was given:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1), ‘whenever application [for judgment by default] is made to the court or to the clerk, any defendant who has appeared is entitled to at least five days’ notice of the time and place of the application, and if more than one year has elapsed since the default any defendant who has not appeared is entitled to the same notice unless the court orders otherwise'” … . “[T]he failure to provide a defendant who has appeared in an action with the notice required by CPLR 3215(g)(1), like the failure to provide proper notice of other kinds of motions, is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of the authority to entertain a motion for leave to enter a default judgment” … . As such, “‘the failure to provide a defendant with proper notice of a motion renders the resulting order and judgment entered upon that order nullities'” … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Powers, 2025 NY Slip Op 01610, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Where it has been more than a year since defendant failed to answer a complaint, the defendant is entitled to notice before entry of a default judgment. Failure to provide notice renders the judgment a nullity.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE STAYED; NEITHER PROCEDURE FOR LIFTING THE STAY WAS INVOKED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a stay of the foreclosure action was in effect because of the suspension of defendant McGrath’s attorney. Because plaintiff never served McGrath with the required notice to lift the stay, the summary judgment order should have been vacated:

When an attorney is suspended from the practice of law, “as with an attorney’s death, incapacitation, removal from an action, or other disability, CPLR 321(c) protects the client by automatically staying the action from the date of the disabling event” … . “The express language of CPLR 321(c) sets no particular time limit to the stay of proceedings that is automatically triggered by a qualifying event” … .

“[D]uring the stay imposed by CPLR 321(c), no proceedings against the party will have any adverse effect” … , and “[o]rders or judgments that are rendered in violation of the stay provisions of CPLR 321(c) must be vacated” … .

“[T]here are actually two ways in which a CPLR 321(c) stay may be lifted. One way is if the party that lost its counsel retains new counsel at its own initiative, or otherwise communicates an intention to proceed pro se” … . “The second way is by means of [a] notice procedure pursuant to CPLR 321(c)” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not serve McGrath with the notice to appoint “either personally or in such manner as the court direct[ed]” (CPLR 321[c]). It is undisputed that no attempt was made to personally serve the required notice, nor is it alleged that the Supreme Court directed that service of the notice be made in some other manner … . Moreover, it is undisputed that McGrath did not communicate an intention to proceed pro se … . Therefore, the automatic stay was not lifted until McGrath opposed the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and cross-moved to vacate the summary judgment order … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v McGrath, 2025 NY Slip Op 01614, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: When a party’s attorney is suspended, the proceedings are automatically stayed. There are two statutory procedures for lifting the stay, neither of which was invoked here.

 

,

THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES IN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE RENDERED THE NOTICE FACIALLY DEFECTIVE; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The bank did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304. The notice did not include the phone number for the NYS Department of Financial Services’ toll-free helpline:

“Where an RPAPL 1304 notice fails to reflect information mandated by the statute, . . . the statute will not have been strictly complied with and the notice will not be valid” … . Here, at the time the RPAPL 1304 notices were purportedly sent to the defendant, the version of RPAPL 1304 in effect required the notice to include the following sentence: “If you need further information, please call the New York State Department of Financial Services’ toll-free helpline at (show number) or visit the Department’s website at (show web address)” … .

Both RPAPL 1304 notices purportedly sent to the defendant included the sentence: “If you need further information, please call the toll-free helpline at or visit the Department’s website at .” Since the notices failed to include the telephone number for the Department of Financial Services’ toll-free helpline—a piece of information specifically required by the version of RPAPL 1304 in effect at the time the notices were sent—the notices were facially defective, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her should have been granted … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Williams-Jones, 2025 NY Slip Op 01081, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: Strict compliance with the mandated contents of a RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure is required. Here the failure to include the phone number for the NYS Department of Financial Services rendered the notice facially defective and warranted a grant of summary judgment to the defendant.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A COURT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE” POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN ORDER, THAT POWER SHOULD ONLY BE EXERCISED IN UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have vacated its own dismissal of the action in 2013 because (Wilmington) demonstrated none of criteria for vacation of a judgment or order described in CPLR 5015 (a);

“Under CPLR 5015(a), the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, upon the ground of excusable default; newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order; or reversal, modification, or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based” … . “In addition to the specific grounds set forth in CPLR 5015(a), a court may, in its discretion, vacate its own judgment ‘for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice'” … . “However, a court’s inherent power to exercise control over its judgments is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through fraud, mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” … . In other words, “[a] court should only exercise its discretionary authority to vacate a judgment in the interests of substantial justice where unique or unusual circumstances . . . warrant such action” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the Wilmington’s motion which was to vacate the 2013 dismissal order. Importantly, Wilmington did not adequately explain why it delayed nearly eight years before filing its motion … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sulton, 2025 NY Slip Op 01128, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: CPLR 5015 (a) gives a court the discretionary power to vacate its own order “in the interests of substantial justice.” That power should only be exercised in unique or unusual circumstances, not present here.

 

,

SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS WHICH REPEAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INITIAL COMPLAINT ARE “SUPPLEMENTAL,” NOT “AMENDED,” COMPLAINTS; DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ANSWER THE INITIAL COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure proceeding was not in default. The defendant answered the first complaint but did not answer two subsequent complaints which were designated “amended complaints,” Amended complaints require an answer, but “supplemental complaints” do not require an answer. Here the “amended complaints” merely repeated the allegations in the original complaint, making them “supplemental,” not “amended,” complaints:

“Generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original pleading, the defendant’s original answer has no effect, and a new responsive pleading is substituted for the original answer. In contrast, a supplemental complaint does not supersede the original pleading and the answer which had already been served at the time the supplemental pleading was interposed remains in effect” … . Here, insofar as asserted against the defendant, the purported amended complaints merely repeated the same allegations against the defendant that were made in the original complaint and, thus, are properly characterized as supplemental complaints … . As the defendant had already answered the allegations asserted, no further answer was required within the meaning of CPLR 3025(d). Thus, the defendant was not in default. U.S. Bank N.A. v Deblinger, 2025 NY Slip Op 01126, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: “Amended” complaints require a new answer, “supplemental” complaints do not. Here, although the subsequent complaints were designated “amended,” they in fact were “supplemental” because they merely repeated the allegations in the first complaint.

 

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