You are here: / Foreclosure
,

THE SECOND DEPT USED THIS OPINION AS A VEHICLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS BROUGHT IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, EMPHASIZING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, explained in detail the proof requirement for a summary judgment motion in a foreclosure action, emphasizing the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court determined that the bank’s proof of standing was sufficient, but the proof of defendant’s default was not. The opinion is too detailed to be fairly summarized here and should be consulted for guidance in foreclosure actions:

From an appellate perspective, the recent flood of foreclosure appeals has revealed consistent and repeated confusion about some of the most fundamental aspects of the procedural, substantive, and evidentiary law that must be routinely applied in a foreclosure context. In an effort to provide additional clarity in this important area of the law, we deem it appropriate to collect and reiterate some of these foundational principles in the hope that such clarity will eliminate many of the disputes that make up an ever-increasing proportion of trial-level dockets. For the reasons that follow, we modify the order appealed from.

… [I]t bears noting that the business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a “writing or record” (CPLR 4518[a]). Although “[t]he foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business” … , it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted … . Accordingly, “[e]vidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records themselves are introduced” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon,2019 NY Slip Op 02306, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff instead relied on the “Affidavit of Mailing” of a vice president of loan documentation of Wells Fargo. However, the affiant did not aver that she personally mailed the notice, and she did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and, therefore, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …. Similarly, the presence of numbered bar codes on the copies of the 90-day statutory notices submitted by the plaintiff did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Offley, 2019 NY Slip Op 02377, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence that the plaintiff had standing in this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule and plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Gabriel De Souza, a contract management coordinator for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), which serviced the subject mortgage for the plaintiff. De Souza indicated that his knowledge of this case was based on his “review of the business records,” and asserted that the plaintiff was “in possession of the Note at the time of commencement of this action.” He did not indicate that the business records of the plaintiff had been incorporated into Ocwen’s business records. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the assertions made by De Souza or the records relied upon by him under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). Inasmuch as the plaintiff’s motion was based on evidence that was not in admissible form, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 02313, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of an employee who claimed that the plaintiff’s business records showed that RPAPL 1304 notices were sent by certified and first-class mail. However, the documentary evidence submitted in support of those claims redacted certain tracking numbers and failed to establish, prima facie, that the notices were mailed by first-class mail … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Succes, 2019 NY Slip Op 02058, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED OR FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should not have been dismissed as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) or for neglect to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216:

It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) … . Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference to establish that it initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) … . Within one year after the defendant’s default, the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321[1]) and, thus, did not abandon this action … . …

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was without power to direct dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 on the ground of lack of prosecution. While CPLR 3216 authorizes the dismissal of a complaint for neglect to prosecute, joinder of issue and service of a 90-day notice are conditions precedent to a dismissal under that statute  … . Here, dismissal was improper, as issue was never joined in the action … . US Bank, N.A. v Picone, 2019 NY Slip Op 02141, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

,

THE 30-DAY NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE NULLIFIED THE ACCELERATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have nullified the acceleration of the mortgage in this foreclosure action. Because acceleration was optional, the 30-day notice provision in the mortgage did not preclude acceleration by the allegations in the foreclosure complaint:

Supreme Court erred in nullifying plaintiff’s assignor’s acceleration in the prior action based on Section 22 of the mortgage which provides that the lender may accelerate the mortgage only if, inter alia, it has served defendant with a proper 30-day notice of default. Where the acceleration is optional as here, some affirmative action must be taken to evince the note holder’s election to accelerate … . Affirmative action can be in the form of a letter … or the commencement of a foreclosure action … . Plaintiff’s assignor accelerated the mortgage debt by commencing the prior action and stating in its complaint that “plaintiff elects herein to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage(s).” Capital One, N.A. v Saglimbeni, 2019 NY Slip Op 01837, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

PROVISION IN MORTGAGE WHICH GAVE BORROWER RIGHT TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF BANK FROM ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY FILING A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined that a reinstatement provision in a mortgage which gives the borrower the option to de-accelerate the debt did not preclude the plaintiff bank from accelerating the debt, rendering the foreclosure action time-barred:

This appeal presents an issue of first impression for this Court. The plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action contends that it lacked the authority to exercise its contractual option to accelerate the maturity of the entire balance of the loan it seeks to recover. The plaintiff argues that it was prevented from validly accelerating the debt by virtue of a reinstatement provision in the subject mortgage which gives the borrower the option, under certain circumstances, to effectively de-accelerate the maturity of the debt. The plaintiff further argues that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the borrower’s rights under the reinstatement provision in the subject mortgage were extinguished. * * *

… .[T]he defendant demonstrated that the subject mortgage provided the plaintiff with the right to require the defendant to immediately pay “the entire amount then remaining unpaid under the Note and [mortgage]” if the plaintiff first satisfied certain conditions set forth in the mortgage. The defendant’s evidentiary submissions established that the plaintiff complied with those conditions … , and then validly exercised its option to accelerate the entire remaining balance due under the note by filing the summons and complaint in the first foreclosure action in June 2010 … . Accordingly, since this action was not commenced until October 2016, the defendant established, prima facie, that the time in which to commence this action has expired (see CPLR 213[4]). * * *

… [T]the extinguishment of the defendant’s contractual right to de-accelerate the maturity of the debt pursuant to the reinstatement provision in paragraph 19 of the mortgage was not a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s acceleration of the mortgage … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Dieudonne, 2019 NY Slip Op 01732, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

, ,

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate that the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were met:

… Lechtanski [the loan servicer representative] did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and failed to make the requisite showing that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore, did not establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the copy of the notice annexed to the Lechtanski affidavits, while bearing a notation “VIA CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL,” bears no indicia of actual mailing such as postal codes and was unaccompanied by any mailing receipts or tracking information … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Taylor, 2019 NY Slip Op 01817, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

,

PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence of standing did not meet the business record exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, since Thrasher [plaintiff’s loan officer] did not allege that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, a proper foundation for the admission of the records was not provided, rendering them inadmissible to establish that the subject note was possessed by or assigned to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action. Moreover, even if a proper foundation had been set forth in the Thrasher affidavit, Thrasher’s assertions as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purports to describe were not submitted with her affidavit. 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 (seeCPLR 4518[a]…). Furthermore, although the plaintiff submitted an endorsed copy of the note in support of its motion for summary judgment, after having appended an unendorsed copy of the note to the complaint, the plaintiff failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the original note at the time the action was commenced … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v 22 S. Madison, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01635, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

, ,

BANK’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WHICH MET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE AND MAILING CRITERIA REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s evidence in this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule and therefore the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted in this foreclosure action. The court further held that defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon the bank’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, an issue that can be raised at any time, should have been granted:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records Wallace relied upon were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]). Wallace did not attest to personal knowledge of SLS’s record-keeping business practices and procedures  … . Wallace also failed to attest that the records were made in the regular course of SLS’s business and that it was the regular course of SLS’s business to make them, at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence, or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Thus, Wallace failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records, and her assertions based on these records were inadmissible … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Weber, 2019 NY Slip Op 01383, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

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