You are here: / Foreclosure
, , ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint as abandoned without giving plaintiff a chance to be heard in this foreclosure action:

… [B]y notice of motion dated August 15, 2014, the plaintiff … moved, inter alia, to extend its time to serve a copy of the order of reference with notice of entry … , nunc pro tunc, to March 23, 2007 (hereinafter the second extension of time motion). In an order dated February 26, 2015 (hereinafter the February 2015 order), the Supreme Court denied the second extension of time motion, and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint as abandoned, noting, inter alia, that “[t]he order of reference at issue was signed in 2007” and the appointed referee was no longer on the fiduciary list. …

The Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination to direct dismissal of the complaint deprived the plaintiff of notice and opportunity to be heard and amounted to a denial of the plaintiff’s due process rights (see CPLR 3216 … ). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the February 2015 order. Chase Home Fin., LLC v Plaut, 2019 NY Slip Op 02494, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent (the holder of the note) did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304. Therefore respondent’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

“[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” … . “The statute requires that such notice . . . be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower” … . …

The respondent, which submitted only a copy of the required notice, and did not submit any evidence that the notice was mailed in the manner required by the statute, failed to meet its prima facie burden with respect to the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Specifically, the respondent did not submit “an affidavit of service, [or] proof of mailing by the post office evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304 [by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to his last known address]” … , or “proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . Marchai Props., L.P. v Fu, 2019 NY Slip Op 02511, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

NO PROOF NOTE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence of standing was insufficient and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The majority held there was no proof the plaintiff was in possession of the note when the action was brought:

On or about September 17, 2014, plaintiff executed a power of attorney appointing Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) as its attorney-in-fact with power to enforce its rights with regard to loans included in the PSA [pooling and service agreement].

Two years after that, on October 19, 2016, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit by Kyle Lucas, an employee of a company whose indirect subsidiary is Ocwen. Lucas alleged that plaintiff had had physical possession of the note since June 6, 2007, but he failed to identify any document which provided the basis for his knowledge. A copy of defendant’s note, endorsed in blank … , was attached to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. However, there is nothing in the record that proves when the note was physically delivered to plaintiff. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Guevara, 2019 NY Slip Op 02412, First Dept 3-28-19

 

,

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

 

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