You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

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

 

,

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

 

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