You are here: / Foreclosure
, , , , ,

UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CONVERSION DOES NOT LIE WHEN PROPERTY INVOLVED IS REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed and noted that a conversion cause of action does not lie where the property involved is real property. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here. In a nutshell the plaintiffs, to avoid paying a broker’s fee, arranged to have defendants’ deceased father purchase real property on their behalf. Defendants (the Passalacquas) took out a mortgage on the property (Wells Fargo mortgage), in violation of the agreement defendants’ father had with plaintiffs, which plaintiffs paid off when they sold the property. Plaintiffs sought to recover the amount of the mortgage from the Passalacquas under unjust enrichment and conversion theories:

Here, the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the Passalacquas were unjustly enriched, at the plaintiffs’ expense, by the plaintiffs’ payment of the Passalacquas’ debt to Wells Fargo, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the Passalacquas to retain what is sought to be recovered … . To the extent that the Passalacquas contend that they used proceeds of the Wells Fargo mortgage to benefit the premises, that contention involves factual issues not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law by suing to enforce the consolidated note … . Further, even if the plaintiffs are entitled to assignment of the consolidated note from Wells Fargo, obtaining such an assignment would require an action in equity … . The unjust enrichment cause of action is also not barred by the existence of the plaintiffs’ contract of sale with the Passalacquas’ late father … .

Contrary to the Passalacquas’ contention, advanced as an alternative ground for affirmance … , the unjust enrichment cause of action was timely asserted. The parties agree that the unjust enrichment cause of action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1]). Such a cause of action accrues “upon the occurrence of the alleged wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution” … . Here, the amended complaint alleges that the plaintiffs’ payment to Wells Fargo was necessitated by the Passalacquas’ default in making payments on the consolidated note, which resulted in Wells Fargo’s acceleration of the debt and the threat of a foreclosure action. Accordingly, this cause of action accrued, at the earliest, in late 2010, when the Passalacquas stopped making payments on the Wells Fargo consolidated mortgage. Mannino v Passalacqua, 2019 NY Slip Op 03961, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 OR CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 or 3215 because the statutory criteria were not met. Issue had not been joined so dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216 was not permitted. And plaintiff had not abandoned the action pursuant to CPLR 3215:

We agree with the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court was without authority to direct dismissal of this action pursuant to CPLR 3216. CPLR 3216(b)(1) states that no dismissal should be made under this statute unless issue has been joined. Indeed, “[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.

We also agree with the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court had no authority to direct dismissal of this action under CPLR 3215(c). “An action is deemed abandoned where a default has occurred and a plaintiff has failed to take proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year thereafter” (…see CPLR 3215[c]). 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) … . Nor is a plaintiff required to specifically seek the entry of a judgment within a year … . As long as the plaintiff has initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year of the default, there is no basis for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) … .

Here, the plaintiff commenced the action on April 16, 2009. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference only five months later, on September 14, 2009—well within one year of the commencement of the action. Although the plaintiff later withdrew its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, in doing so, it stated that it “will not be discontinuing [this] action.” Thus, the plaintiff explicitly informed the court that it was not abandoning the action … . National City Mtge. Co. v Sclavos, 2019 NY Slip Op 03605, Second Dept 5-8-19

 

, ,

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN REPLY DID NOT SATISFY PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence relied upon by plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not meet the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The court noted that documents submitted in reply could not be considered to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of making out a prima facie case:

Although “the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents as business records, such records are nonetheless admissible if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, or that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records or routinely relied upon by the recipient in its business” … . While [plaintiff’s vice president] averred, inter alia, that his affidavit was based on books and records maintained by the plaintiff, he did not state that Bank of America’s records were provided to the plaintiff and incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records, or that the plaintiff routinely relied upon such records in its business, or that he had personal knowledge of Bank of America’s business practices and procedures. Thus, he failed to lay the proper foundation for admission of these records … . The affidavit and documents submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in reply to the defendants’ opposition could not be used to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden.​ Tri-State Loan Acquisitions III, LLC v Litkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 03398, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING BE MADE BEFORE A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MAY BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a plaintiff in a foreclosure action need not make a motion to confirm a referee’s report before a judgment of foreclosure can be granted:

… [T]he plaintiff moved … to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court denied the motion without prejudice to renew upon confirmation of the referee’s report. The plaintiff appeals.

CPLR 4403 authorizes a court to confirm or reject a referee’s report and, thereafter, to “render decision directing judgment in the action.” There is no requirement under the statute that a motion to confirm a referee’s report be made before a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale may be brought. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s motion … . Real Estate Mtge. Network, Inc. v Pretto, 2019 NY Slip Op 03390, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS AND THEREFORE LACKED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff failed to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure proceedings:

Plaintiff cannot establish that the note was assigned to it by a written assignment prior to commencement of foreclosure proceedings. Therefore, it must “adequately prove[] that it did, indeed, have possession of the note prior to commencement of this action” … , and where an affiant’s knowledge is based on unidentified and unproduced records, “the affidavit lacks any probative value” and cannot be the basis for an award of summary judgment … . Since plaintiff has failed to establish that it had physical possession of the note prior to commencement of this action, we reverse the motion court’s award of summary judgment to plaintiff. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v Gould, 2019 NY Slip Op 03266, First Dept 4-30-19​

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate it had complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The court noted that evidence submitted in reply was properly considered because the opposing party had an opportunity to respond:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304(1) provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in RPAPL 1304, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. RPAPL 1304(1) sets forth the requirements for the content of such notice and RPAPL 1304(2) further provides that such notice must be sent “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” to the last known address of the borrower. “[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … .

Here, even considering the affidavit of Victoria Bressner submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, the plaintiff failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Bressner did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the record indicates that the notices were not mailed by the plaintiff. LNV Corp. v Sofer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02860, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court was without power to dismiss for neglect to prosecute because the preconditions in CPLR 3216 were not met. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action, finding that plaintiff bank had not complied with an oral directive issued at a status conference:

Following settlement conferences held pursuant to CPLR 3408, the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part without any resolution. In an order … (hereinafter the dismissal order), the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with an oral directive issued at a status conference … , to resume prosecution of the action. …[T]he plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the calendar. [T]he Supreme Court … denied the plaintiff’s motion. …

“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” … . Specifically, issue must have been joined, at least one year must have elapsed since joinder of issue, the defendant or the court must have served on the plaintiff a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, and the plaintiff must have failed to serve and file a note of issue within the 90-day period (see CPLR 3216[b] …). 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 … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Ferrari, 2019 NY Slip Op 02847, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

THE PROOF REQUIRED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FOR BOTH PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS, IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, ON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE PROVISIONS, EXPLAINED; PRIOR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Iannacci, reversing Supreme Court, fleshed out the proof required for summary judgment, for both plaintiffs and defendants, with respect to compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). The court noted that prior decisions holding that a defendant’s denial of receipt of notice was enough should no longer be followed:

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Crampton [assistant vice president of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC] stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened. There is no copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute. Further, while Crampton attested that she was in receipt of the prior loan servicer’s records, that she had personal knowledge of the business practices for mailing of notices by Wilmington, and that the 90-day notice was sent in compliance with RPAPL 1304, she did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of Bank of America, the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendant. * * *

Even in the face of a plaintiff’s failure to establish, prima facie, that a notice was properly mailed on a motion for summary judgment on the complaint, this Court has held that a defendant still has to meet its burden, on a cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, of establishing that the condition precedent was not fulfilled … . Here, the defendant provided no particulars supporting her claim that Bank of America never mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice to her last known address. The defendant only stated that she never received the notice. The defendant did not confirm that she still lived at the address shown on the notice on the date it was purportedly mailed, that she had been receiving other mail at that address, and that she was never contacted by the United States Post Office about mail for which she was required to sign. We hold that a simple denial of receipt, without more, is insufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. To the extent that our prior decisions are to the contrary, they should no longer be followed. Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02846, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRECLUDE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO MOVE FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED BY KINGS COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment did not preclude defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure action based upon plaintiff bank’s failure to comply with Rule 8 (Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Rules) :

In August 2013, the plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against the defendant Andy McAlpin (hereinafter the defendant) and others. The defendant did not answer or appear in the action, and in February 2014, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference. In an order dated October 24, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff did not move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and in May 2016, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order of reference and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that he had not been served with the summons and complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with Part F, rule 8, of the Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules (hereinafter Rule 8). Rule 8 requires a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure within one year of entry of the order of reference. …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant was not precluded from seeking relief under Rule 8 by the denial of that branch of his motion which was to vacate his default … . Bank of Am., N.A. v McAlpin,b2019 NY Slip Op 02843, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

PURSUANT TO AN EXCEPTION IN 22 NYCRR 202.5-b, USING THE NYSCEF ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROPER SERVICE OF A NOTICE OF ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS, THE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER THEREFORE NEVER STARTED TO RUN AND DEFENDANTS WERE NOT IN DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a notice of entry in this foreclosure action, although the NYSCEF electronic filing system was used, was not properly served and therefore defendants’ time to answer never started running and defendants were not in default:

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, since the plaintiff never served the Dedvukaj defendants with notice of entry of the June 2015 order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint, their answer was timely served, as their time to answer never started to run (see CPLR 3211[f] …). …

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.5-b, the court rule governing electronic filing for the Supreme Court, a party may serve an interlocutory document upon another party by filing the document electronically: “Upon receipt of [the] interlocutory document, the NYSCEF site shall automatically transmit electronic notification to all e-mail service addresses in such action . . . . Except as provided otherwise in subdivision (h)(2) of this section, the electronic transmission of the notification shall constitute service of the document on the e-mail service addresses identified therein” … .

Subdivision (h)(2), which appears in a subsection entitled “Entry of Orders and Judgments and Notice of Entry,” provides, in relevant part: “[a] party may serve [an order or judgment and written notice of its entry] electronically by filing them with the NYSCEF site and thus causing transmission by the site of notification of receipt of the documents, which shall constitute service . . . by the filer. In the alternative, a party may serve a copy of the order or judgment and written notice of its entry in hard copy by any method set forth in CPLR 2103(b)(1) to (6). If service is made in hard copy by any such method and a copy of the order or judgment and notice of its entry and proof of such hard copy service are thereafter filed with the NYSCEF site, transmission by NYSCEF of notification of receipt of those documents shall not constitute additional service of the notice of entry on the parties to whom the notification is sent” … . JBBNY, LLC v Dedvukaj, 2019 NY Slip Op 02692, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

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