You are here: / Foreclosure
,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s proof that defendant (Bazigos) defaulted on the loan was inadmissible hearsay:

“In order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage and unpaid note, along with evidence of the default” … . “A plaintiff may establish a payment default by an admission made in response to a notice to admit (see CPLR 3212[b]; 3123), by an affidavit from a person having [personal] knowledge of the facts’ (CPLR 3212[b]), or by other evidence in admissible form'” … .

Here, Bluford (a bank vice-president), whose knowledge was based on business records, did not actually attach or otherwise incorporate into her affidavit any business records showing that Bazigos had defaulted on the note. Thus, her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value on the issue of Bazigos’s default … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Bazigos, 2019 NY Slip Op 06757, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not prove the amount due the plaintiff and therefore the referee’s report should not have been confirmed:

… [W]ith respect to the amount due to the plaintiff, the referee based his findings on an affidavit of Theresa Robertson, an employee of the plaintiff, who averred, based on her review of the plaintiff’s business records, that the defendant defaulted by failing to make the payment due on May 1, 2010, and “all subsequent payments.” However, as the defendant correctly contends, Robertson’s assertions in that regard constituted inadmissible hearsay … , since the records themselves were not provided to the referee … . Moreover, even if the records had been provided, ” [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'” … . Nothing in Robertson’s affidavit, in which she averred that the plaintiff received the original note on May 13, 2013, indicated that the plaintiff was the maker of the records relating to the defendant’s alleged initial default in May 2010 and her alleged failure to make payments for some period of time thereafter. Robertson also did not aver that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the plaintiff’s records and routinely relied upon by the plaintiff in its own business … . Therefore, the plaintiff failed to lay a proper foundation for the business records on which Robertson relied with respect to the amount due to the plaintiff. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court’s error in relying on the hearsay evidence was not harmless … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Durane-Bolivard, 2019 NY Slip Op 06502, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND ENDORSEMENTS WAS “MATERIAL AND NECESSARY” TO THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE BANK HAS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the bank in this foreclosure action to produce the original note and endorsements should have been granted. Defendant had challenged the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action and the production of the original note and endorsements was “material and necessary” to resolve the standing question:

It is undisputed that a copy of the underlying note was annexed to the complaint. However, it cannot be ascertained from the copy of the note provided by the plaintiff 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, and if on an allonge, whether the allonge was “so firmly affixed as to become a part thereof,” as required under UCC 3-202(2). Since the answers to these questions are “material and necessary” to the defense of lack of standing, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to produce the original note and endorsements … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Charleston, 2019 NY Slip Op 06463, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS IN THE MILITARY; THE “AFFIX AND MAIL” METHOD OF SERVICE DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined personal jurisdiction was not obtained over defendant in this foreclosure action. The process server, who used the “affix and mail” method of service, was aware defendant was in the military:

After the hearing, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff had not established personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4), known as “affix and mail” service, “may be used only where service under CPLR 308(1) or 308(2) cannot be made with due diligence'” … . “While the precise manner in which due diligence is to be accomplished is not rigidly prescribed, the requirement that due diligence be exercised must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to [CPLR 308(4)] will be received”… . A mere showing of several attempts at service at either a defendant’s residence or place of business may not satisfy the “due diligence” requirement before resort to affix and mail service … . ” [D]ue diligence’ may be satisfied with a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant’s residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found at such location at those times” … . …

According to the affidavit of service and the process server’s in-house work order sheet, however, the process server knew that the defendant was in active military service. Since the process server was aware that the defendant was engaged in active military service at the time the process server attempted service at the address, the process server’s four attempts at service prior to resorting to affix-and-mail service were not made when the defendant “could reasonably be expected to be found at such location” … . Mid-Island Mtge. Corp. v Drapal, 2019 NY Slip Op 06488, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

BANK’S PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT INSUFFICIENT AT BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRIAL STAGES IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action because it did not submit sufficient proof of defendant’s default. At trial Supreme Court properly held that plaintiff bank did not meet its prima facie burden because the proper foundation for the admission of business records was not provided:

… [P]laintiff failed to submit evidence establishing her default. Wilson [Wells Fargo vice president] failed to attach or incorporate any of Wells Fargo’s business records to her affidavit. Accordingly, her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . …

“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” … . At the trial in this case, Wiggins [Wells Fargo loan verification officer] testified only that he had access to Wells Fargo’s computerized records. He did not testify that he was familiar with Wells Fargo’s practices in making those records, and he failed to state that he had any knowledge regarding the plaintiff’s records. Moreover, the plaintiff did not attempt to introduce any of the relevant records into evidence. Thus, Wiggins failed to establish an evidentiary basis for his statement that the subject loan was in default … . HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Green, 2019 NY Slip Op 06482, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, , ,

BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ITS STANDING, ITS COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE, OR ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RPAPL, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action because it presented: (1) insufficient proof of standing; (2) insufficient proof of compliance with the notice provisions of the mortgage; and (3) insufficient proof of compliance with the RPAPL notice requirements:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its standing because it did not show that it was a holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. The affidavits of Melissa Guillote and Myrna Moore, both vice presidents of loan documentation of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, nonparty Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter the loan servicer), that were submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, conflict as to whether the plaintiff or the loan servicer possessed the note on the date the action was commenced. Moreover, neither affidavit attaches any admissible document to show that the plaintiff possessed the note endorsed in blank prior to the commencement of this action (see CPLR 4518[a] …). The affidavits also fail to show that either Guillote or Moore possessed personal knowledge of whether the plaintiff possessed the note prior to commencement of the action. …

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the conditions precedent contained in sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage, which provide that required notice to the defendants is considered given when it is mailed by first class mail or when it is actually delivered to the defendants’ notice address if sent by any other means … . …

The plaintiff also failed to show, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. Proper service of the RPAPL 1304 notice containing the statutorily mandated content is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . The plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendants as prescribed by the statute … . HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Dubose, 2019 NY Slip Op 06481, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS MADE; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONDITIONAL ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AN UNAUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL TO WHICH THE PARTIES STIPULATED WAS NOT CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the conditional order upon which dismissal of the complaint was based was not authorized because issue had not been joined at the time the order was made. Therefore the bank’s motion to vacate the conditional order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. However, because of the two year delay in moving to vacate the order, the bank is not entitled to interest, late charges, fees, costs and attorney’s fees incurred after the date of the 2014 conditional order. An unauthorized supplemental record on appeal, which was stipulated to by the parties, contained material that was not in the record and was not considered by the Second Department:

A pleading cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought’ in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . While a conditional order of dismissal may have “the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order here was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion by the court to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute … . Additionally, it appears that the complaint was ministerially dismissed, without a motion, and without the entry of any formal order by the court dismissing the complaint … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Spence, 2019 NY Slip Op 06529, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE DID NOT START RUNNING; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action to cancel and discharge a mortgage on the ground the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action had expired was properly dismissed. Although the bank had attempted to foreclose in 2008, that action was dismissed for lack of standing. Therefore the debt was not accelerated by the 2008 foreclosure proceedings:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4), a person having an estate or an interest in real property subject to a mortgage can seek to cancel and discharge that encumbrance where the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitations for the commencement of an action to foreclose the mortgage has expired, provided that the mortgagee or its successor was not in possession of the subject real property at the time the action to cancel and discharge the mortgage was commenced … . An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]). “[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt” … . However, “an acceleration of a mortgaged debt, by either written notice or the commencement of an action, is only valid if the party making the acceleration had standing at that time to do so”  … .

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, including the order dated December 13, 2011, demonstrated that while CitiGroup purported to accelerate the mortgage debt in the complaint served in the action to foreclose the mortgage in January 2008, that acceleration was a nullity, inasmuch as CitiGroup lacked standing to commence that foreclosure action … . Therefore, the plaintiff’s allegation in this action that the statute of limitations to enforce the mortgage had expired was not a fact at all, and it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it … . Q & O Estates Corp. v US Bank Trust Nat’l Assoc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06524, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice of default provision in the mortgage. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in section 22 of the mortgage agreement regarding the notice of default. The plaintiff’s submissions did not establish that the notice was sent by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . PNMAC Mtge. Opportunity Fund Invs., LLC v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 06523, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

MORTGAGE WAS NOT ACCELERATED UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN OCTOBER 2016; ACTION FOR THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS MISSED DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2016 IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage was not accelerated until the foreclosure action was commenced in October, 2016. Therefore the action was not time-barred, except for the mortgages payments due but not paid more than six years prior to October 2016 (missed payments prior to October 2010):

… [C]ontrary to the defendant’s contention, he did not establish that the complaint should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds through the notices sent to the defendant in February 2009 and May 2009, as those notices did not accelerate the mortgage. The notices indicated that acceleration was a possible future event, but did not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s acceleration clause … . Rather, the mortgage was only accelerated in October 2016, when the plaintiff served the foreclosure complaint on the defendant seeking immediate payment of the balance of the principal indebtedness. Thus, the Supreme Court should not have granted dismissal of the complaint in its entirety as time-barred. Specifically, the defendant failed to show that the causes of action in the complaint, insofar as they relate to unpaid mortgage installments which accrued within the six-year period immediately preceding the plaintiff’s October 2016 commencement of this foreclosure action, to wit, the unpaid installments which accrued on or after October 6, 2010, were time-barred … .

However, where, as here, the mortgage was payable in installments, there are “separate causes of action for each installment accrued, and the Statute of Limitations [begins] to run, on the date each installment [becomes] due” … . Therefore, since the plaintiff alleged that the defendant made his last payment on mortgage in January 2009 and this action was not commenced until October 6, 2016, the defendant established that any unpaid installments of the mortgage which accrued before the six-year period prior to the plaintiff’s commencement of this mortgage foreclosure action, to wit, unpaid installments from January 2009 through October 5, 2010, are time-barred … . Ditech Fin., LLC v Reiss, 2019 NY Slip Op 06208, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

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