You are here: / Foreclosure
, , ,

THE UCC CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF POSSESSION OF A LOST NOTE WERE NOT MET; PLAINTIFF BANK THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action. The UCC’s requirements for demonstrating ownership of a lost note were not met:

… [T]he affidavit of possession of the original note, sworn to by a vice president of loan documentation for the plaintiff, does not contain any details of delivery of the note, except for the claim that it was delivered to the plaintiff sometime after its execution, and that the plaintiff “had possession of the Promissory Note on or before … the date that this action was commenced.” The lost note affidavit of another vice president of loan documentation employed by the plaintiff stated vaguely, and in a conclusory manner, that the note was “inadvertently lost, misplaced or destroyed,” that the plaintiff had not “pledged, assigned, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of the note,” and that the plaintiff had made “a diligent and extensive search of its records in a good faith effort to discover the lost note in accordance with its procedures for locating the lost note.” The lost note affidavit did not provide any facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or when or how the note was lost … . Thus, it “failed to sufficiently establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note” … .

Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its ownership of the lost note (see UCC 3-804), or that it had standing, “as the lawful holder or assignee of the subject note on the date it commenced this action, to commence the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Meisels, 2019 NY Slip Op 08243, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, , ,

BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OR COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; 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 the bank’s (Chase’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted, The court held: (1) the conclusory affidavit submitted by the bank  to prove defendant’s default had no probative value, the business record itself should have been provided; (2) compliance with the mailing provisions of RPAPL 1304 was not proven by the bank; (3) failure to comply with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 can be raised as a defense at any time; and (4) by not raising the failure to provide the notice required by the mortgage in the answer or a motion to amend the answer, the defendant waived that defense:

Here, the affidavit of Mimoza Petreska, a vice president of Chase, submitted in support of Chase’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, was insufficient to establish the defendant’s default in payment under the note … . The only business record annexed to Petreska’s affidavit with regard to the default was a copy of the notice of default dated May 15, 2012, which merely stated, in conclusory fashion, that the defendant’s loan was in default. Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value … . Moreover, “[w]hile a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Akanda, 2019 NY Slip Op 08180, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT TO WARRANT A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive concurring memorandum, determined that defendant made a sufficient showing to warrant a hearing on whether she was served with the summons and complaint in this foreclosure action:

Although the defendant did not deny having actual notice of the action, “[w]hen the requirements for service of process have not been met, it is irrelevant that defendant may have actually received the documents” … . “Service is only effective . . . when it is made pursuant to the appropriate method authorized by the CPLR. Actual notice alone will not sustain the service or subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction [when there has not been compliance with] prescribed conditions of service” … . * * *

The defendant rebutted the process server’s affidavit of service through her specific and detailed affidavit, in which she averred that “[t]he [a]ffidavit of service falsely states that a copy of the Summons and Complaint was affixed to my door.” The defendant’s affidavit set out in great detail that the defendant was at home each time that the process server purportedly attempted service, as she was recuperating from a kidney transplant. The defendant averred that April 3, 2009, which happened to be her birthday, was a Friday, and that as an observant Jew she did not leave her home. The defendant submitted a Sabbath calendar printout showing that the sun did not set until 8:04 p.m. on April 4, 2009, approximately one hour after the process server purportedly affixed the summons and complaint to her door. The defendant averred that she never heard anyone knock at her door or ring her doorbell and that, despite various medical problems, she has no issues with her hearing. The defendant averred that her daughter came to pick her up for dinner at 8:30 p.m. on April 4, 2009, and that upon leaving her home, she did not see any documents affixed to her door. The foregoing detailed averments were sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit and to warrant a hearing on the issue of whether service was properly made … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Assouline, 2019 NY Slip Op 07891, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

A FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DOES NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DOES NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the prior foreclosure action which was dismissed on the ground the bank did not demonstrate standing did not serve to accelerate the mortgage debt. Therefore the statute of limitations did not start running and the current foreclosure action is timely:

… [T]he Supreme Court in the 2009 action determined that the defendant was entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing. “Where, as here, the prior action is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing, the purported acceleration is a nullity, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run at the time of the purported acceleration” … . Further, the record contains no evidence of either a written assignment or physical delivery of the underlying note to the plaintiff prior to April 2, 2009, so as to establish the plaintiff’s standing to commence the 2009 action … . Thus, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the commencement of the 2009 action did not accelerate the mortgage debt, and the statute of limitations did not begin to run when the 2009 action was commenced … . HSBC Bank USA v Rinaldi, 2019 NY Slip Op 07878, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL WAIVED ANY LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATEMENT IN THE NOTICE THAT JURISDICTIONAL DEFENSES WERE NOT WAIVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ counsel had waived any lack of personal jurisdiction in this foreclosure action by filing a notice of appearance, notwithstanding the statement in the notice that jurisdictional defenses were not waived:

” The filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party’s counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction'” … .

Here, the defendants’ counsel filed a notice of appearance dated February 25, 2015, and the defendants did not move to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time, or assert lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading … . It is immaterial that the notice of appearance, in addition to requesting that all papers in the action be served on the defendants’ counsel, stated that “[t]he Defendants do not waive any jurisdictional defenses by reason of the within appearance.” This language is not a talisman to protect the defendants from their failure to take timely and appropriate action to preserve their defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants did not move to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction until January 2016, more than 10 months after filing the notice of appearance. Under these circumstances, the defendants waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them in this action. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Jacobowitz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07773, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements and did not demonstrate standing:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer. The affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the representative did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notice, and provided no independent proof of the actual mailing … . Since 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 someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . …

… [T]he plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff is not the original lender, and the note was not endorsed. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted an allonge bearing an undated endorsement in blank, as well as the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer, dated March 31, 2016, who stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note, but who did not attest that the plaintiff possessed the note prior to the commencement of the action, or that she had personal knowledge of such possession. The plaintiff’s submissions therefore failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time of commencement of this action in March 2015 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Ettinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 07759, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BECAUSE A 90-DAY NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN SERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should not have been dismissed for failure to prosecute because a 90-day notice had not been served:

In April 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Melchior Sansone (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage secured by certain real property located in Suffolk County. In January 2011, following settlement conferences, the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part without any resolution. On July 20, 2012, the parties appeared at a compliance conference, at which time the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to resume the prosecution of this action. By order dated November 21, 2012 (hereinafter the dismissal order), the court directed dismissal of the action upon the plaintiff’s failure to resume prosecution of the action. The plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the dismissal order, and, in effect, to restore the action to the active calendar. By order dated July 30, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . These conditions include, among others, service of a written demand “requiring the party against whom such relief is sought to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand” (CPLR 3216[b][3] …). Here, the Supreme Court was without power to direct dismissal of the action on the ground of failure to prosecute because the plaintiff was not served with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Sansone, 2019 NY Slip Op 07807, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; 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 did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 or with the notice provisions of the mortgage:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened … . Nor did [plaintiff’s employee] attest that she had personal knowledge of the mailing practices of her employer at the time the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly were sent. Accordingly, “[s]ince 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 someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304” … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with section 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendants prior to the commencement of this action. [Plaintiff’s employee’s] unsubstantiated and conclusory statements that a representative … mailed such notice “[i]n accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage” to the defendants at their last known address at least 30 days prior to commencement of the action, even combined with copies of the notices of default and envelopes, with no evidence as to the date the envelopes were sent, “failed to establish that the required notice was mailed to the defendant[s] by first-class mail or actually delivered to [their] notice address’ if sent by other means, as required by the mortgage agreement” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v defendants., 2019 NY Slip Op 07806, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

THE ESTATE OF A JOINT TENANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED UPON DEATH, THE ESTATE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the estate’s motion to intervene in a foreclosure proceeding was properly denied. When Sydney Burt, a joint tenant with right of survivorship, died, his interest in the property subject to the foreclosure action passed to the joint tenant, Karyn Berkley, and not to Sydney’s estate. Therefore the estate did not have the right to intervene in the foreclosure:

… [T]he issue of whether the proposed intervenor was a necessary party in the action was determined on the merits by the Supreme Court in its order … , wherein it denied the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint for failure to join the proposed intervenor. Thus, the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the proposed intervenor was a necessary party. … [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny intervention. New York defines a joint tenancy as “an estate held by two or more persons jointly, with equal rights to share in its enjoyment during their lives, and creating in each joint tenant a right of survivorship” … . “The right of survivorship has been defined as a right of automatic inheritance’ where, upon the death of one joint tenant, the property does not pass through the rules of intestate succession, but is automatically inherited by the remaining tenant” … . Therefore, when one joint tenant dies, the other joint tenants automatically inherit the property. This is in marked contrast to tenancies in common which allow a decedent’s share of property to pass under the rules of inheritance … . Thus, here, upon the Sydney Burt’s death, his interest in the property did not pass to his estate, the proposed intervenor; rather, it automatically passed to the remaining joint tenants, the defendant and Berkley. Therefore, the proposed intervenor was not a necessary party and did not have the right to intervene in the foreclosure action. PHH Mtge. Corp. v Burt, 2019 NY Slip Op 07802, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BANK ACCEPTED PAYMENTS IN LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT AFTER THE ALLEGED DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because defendants presented evidence the bank had accepted payments after the alleged default:

… [T]he defendants presented evidence demonstrating that, subsequent to their alleged default in September 2008, the plaintiff accepted mortgage payments in a lesser amount than originally required, which raises triable issues of fact as to whether the parties entered into a modification agreement subsequent to the defendants’ alleged default in September 2008, and whether there was a continuing default by the defendants from 2008 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v McEntee, 2019 NY Slip Op 07636, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

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