You are here: / Foreclosure
, , , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFFECTED THE MERITS OF THE CASE; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND THE RELATED ORDER IS A NULLITY; THE APPEAL THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the death of a party to this foreclosure proceeding deprived the court of jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have considered defendant’s motion and the related order was a nullity:

In 2003, defendant Sharon A. Harris (hereinafter defendant) and defendant Marion D. Schubnel executed a note in favor of plaintiff that was secured by a mortgage on real property located in Albany County. Defendant and Schubnel owned the subject property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. …

… [P]laintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against defendant and Schubnel, among others. Defendant served an answer but Schubnel failed to do so. In November 2016, Schubnel died. In July 2017, defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer and, as relevant here, sought to add a statute of limitations affirmative defense. In an amended order entered November 2017, Supreme Court granted the motion and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as time-barred. …

The death of a party generally stays an action until a personal representative is substituted for the deceased party … . Strict adherence to this rule, however, is unnecessary where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of the case … .

It is true that defendant, as the surviving joint tenant, obtained Schubnel’s interest in the subject property upon Schubnel’s death. Notwithstanding this transfer of interest, Schubnel’s estate can still be held liable for any deficiency in the event that a sale of the subject property fails to satisfy the debt. Indeed, the complaint specifically requests that such relief be granted should it be necessary … . In the absence of a substitution of Schubnel, a discontinuance of the action insofar as asserted against Schubnel or a representation by plaintiff that it would be waiving its right to seek a deficiency judgment against Schubnel, the death of Schubnel affects the merits of the case … . Because an automatic stay was in effect upon Schubnel’s death, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion and, therefore, the November 2017 amended order is a nullity … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Schubnel, 2019 NY Slip Op 07462, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

A LETTER INDICATING THE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED IF THE ARREARS WERE NOT PAID DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment contending the bank’s action was time barred and the bank failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 should have been denied. The 2010 letter from the bank which mentioned that the loan would be accelerated if the arreats were not paid did not serve to accelerate the debt. And defendant (Grella) did not demonstrate the bank failed to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

On or about December 12, 2010, the loan servicer sent Grella a notice of default which demanded payment of the arrears, and stated, in relevant part, that “[u]nless the payments on your loan can be brought current by January 11, 2011, it will become necessary to require immediate payment in full (also called acceleration) of your Mortgage Note. . . . If funds are not received by the above referenced date, we will proceed with acceleration.” Thereafter, the note and the mortgage were assigned to the plaintiff. …

Contrary to Grella’s contention, the language in the 2010 notice of default did not serve to accelerate the loan, as it “was nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause” … . …

Here, as the moving party, Grella was required to affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Grella failed to make such a showing.  HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 2019 NY Slip Op 07388, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court was without authority to dismiss (sua sponte) the complaint in this foreclosure action because (1) issue had not been joined, and (2) there was no evidence plaintiff failed to appear at a conference:

CPLR 3216(b)(1) states that no dismissal should be made under this statute unless issue has been joined. “A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met”  … . Here, none of the defendants submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). “Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met here, the Supreme Court was without power to dismiss the action pursuant to that statute” … . …

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, where, as here, a party “appeared as scheduled, [22 NYCRR 202.27] provides no basis for the court to summarily dismiss the action” for failure to prosecute … . In general, “[t]he procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b) … . Bank of N.Y. v Harper, 2019 NY Slip Op 07378, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS OF THE NOTE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE 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 concerning the allegedly lost note. The bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Among the evidence offered by the plaintiff was a lost note affidavit, signed by a representative of Beneficial Homeowner Service Corporation (hereinafter Beneficial), the purported predecessor-in-interest to the plaintiff, stating that the note was deemed lost as of November 14, 2013, and that Beneficial was “in possession of the original Note prior to its whereabouts becoming undeterminable.” The evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was ever in physical possession of the subject note … .

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate its ownership of the subject note by written assignment. The plaintiff submitted a document dated June 12, 2015, purporting to be a written assignment of the appellants’ mortgage and underlying note to the plaintiff by Beneficial, signed by Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Caliber), as Beneficial’s “attorney in fact.” However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate as a matter of law the validity of the written assignment, because the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence of Caliber’s authority to execute the assignment as Beneficial’s attorney-in-fact … . …

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the facts that prevented production of the lost note … . The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff failed to identify who conducted the search for the lost note … , and failed to explain “when or how the note was lost” … , but instead described only approximately when the search for the note was conducted and when the loss was discovered, which was “on or about” the date the affidavit was executed.

In light of the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the requirements of UCC 3-804, we need not reach the parties’ further contentions regarding the plaintiff’s standing to commence this action … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Rose, 2019 NY Slip Op 07440, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN INADMISSIBLE FORM AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE CONDITIONS IN THE MORTGAGE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the evidence submitted by defendant in this foreclosure action was either not in admissible form or did not comply with the requirements of the mortgage:

In support of those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and to appoint a referee, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen). The employee attested that she was familiar with business records of Ocwen but failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the defendant’s payment history and default. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon in the affidavit were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … .

… [T]he defendant … failed to establish that the required notice of default was mailed by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by paragraphs 15 and 22 of the mortgage. U.S. Bank N.A. v Kochhar, 2019 NY Slip Op 07439, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted relief in this foreclosure action which was not requested by the defendant:

“The court may grant relief that is warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief contained in a notice of motion if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the defendants did not request an extension of time to answer, and the Supreme Court’s determination to, sua sponte, grant that relief was an improvident exercise of discretion. Indeed, to extend the time to answer the complaint, a defendant must generally provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . Here, the only excuse offered by the defendants for their default was the plaintiff’s alleged failure to properly serve them, which excuse was rejected by the Supreme Court. Further, the defendants did not proffer any potentially meritorious defense to the action. We note also that the court’s sua sponte determination to extend the time within which the defendants had to answer the complaint is fundamentally inconsistent with its determination to deny that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Since the judgment determined the action and the rights of the parties, allowing the defendants to interpose an answer was without practical import. U.S. Bank N.A. v Halevy, 2019 NY Slip Op 07438, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the evidence of standing submitted by the bank did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing …. The affidavits of Andrea Kruse, vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s servicer, failed to lay the proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule to support her assertion that the note was transferred to the plaintiff’s custodian prior to commencement of the action and remained in the possession of the plaintiff’s custodian at the time of commencement …. While, in attempting to rely upon the documentary evidence that was annexed to the motion, Kruse averred in her first affidavit that she reviewed the books and records regularly created, maintained, and kept by Wells Fargo, and in her second affidavit that she reviewed the books and records regularly created, maintained, and kept by the plaintiff, she did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s or Wells Fargo’s record-keeping practices and procedures, or that the plaintiff’s records were incorporated into Wells Fargo’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . US Bank Natl. Assn. v Hunte, 2019 NY Slip Op 07311, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not submit proof of compliance with the filing requirements of RPAPL 1306:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1306, lenders “shall file with the superintendent of financial services . . . within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by [RPAPL 1304]” a form containing certain information regarding the borrower and the mortgage (RPAPL 1306[1]; see RPAPL 1306[2]). RPAPL 1306(1) further states that “[a]ny complaint served in [an action] initiated pursuant to [RPAPL article 13] shall contain, as a condition precedent to such [action], an affirmative allegation that at the time the [action] is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section.”

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of compliance with RPAPL 1306. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lyon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07060, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THE BANK HAD ARGUED SHE WAS NOT A BORROWER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was a “borrower” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 and therefore she was entitled to the required 90-day notice, which she did not receive. That bank argued that she was not a borrower because only her deceased husband signed the note. However she was named on the mortgage and she signed the mortgage:

While RPAPL 1304 provides that the notice shall be sent to the “borrower,” that term is not defined in the statute (see RPAPL 1304). It is undisputed that only the defendant’s deceased husband, Solomon Forman, is identified as a “borrower” in the note which is secured by the mortgage. That is not determinative in this case. In the mortgage instrument, the defendant is referred to as a borrower. On the first page of the mortgage instrument, under the heading entitled “Words Used Often in this Document,” the defendant is identified, along with her husband, as ” Borrower.'” The defendant is also designated as “Borrower” under her signature on the signature page of the mortgage instrument. While the plaintiff contends that this standard mortgage form mischaracterizes the defendant as a borrower, any ambiguities in the language of the document must be construed against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is the party who supplied the document … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Forman, 2019 NY Slip Op 07045, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK; 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 motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There was insufficient evidence the note was endorsed in blank and there was insufficient evident of defendant’s default:

… [I]t is undisputed that a copy of the underlying note was annexed to the complaint. However, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s assertion in its appellate brief that “[t]he note, as attached to the complaint, was indorsed in blank on the reverse side of the signature page (and not a separate allonge),” it cannot be ascertained from the copy of the note annexed to the complaint whether the separate page that bears the endorsement in blank was stamped on the back of the note, as alleged by the plaintiff, or on an allonge, in which case the plaintiff would have to prove that the endorsement was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required under UCC 3-202(2).

… [W]hile Panganiban’s [plaintiff bank’s vice president’s] affidavit was sufficient to establish a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) … , the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the business records themselves. “[T]he business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a writing or record’ (CPLR 4518[a]) . . . [and] it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “While 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” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Grennan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06761, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

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