You are here: / Foreclosure
,

BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to comply with the court’s order to move for summary judgment within 60 days could not be the basis for dismissal for neglect to prosecute, which requires a 90-day notice:

​

“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” … . The September order could not be deemed a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it gave US Bank only 60 days within which to file a motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3216[b][3]). Since the dismissal order … , merely effectuated the September order, which did not meet the statutory preconditions set forth in CPLR 3216, there was a failure of a condition precedent, and the Supreme Court was not authorized to dismiss the action on its own motion … . In any event, there was no evidence that the plaintiff intended to abandon the action, that the default was willful, or that the defendants were prejudiced … . US Bank, N.A. v Mizrahi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08548, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT))

,

INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the amount of interest and attorney’s fees in this foreclosure proceeding must be recalculated. There was a three-year delay (which was not plaintiff’s fault) for which interest should not have accrued. In addition there must be some showing the attorney’s fees reflect the work actually done:

​

“In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party” … . Here, in view of the lengthy delay by PE-NC’s [plaintiff’s] predecessors in interest in prosecuting this action, PE-NC should recover no interest for the roughly three-year period of time from when the action was commenced in 2005 to when the defendant filed a request for judicial intervention in 2008. While PE-NC did not cause this delay, it should not benefit financially, in the form of accrued interest, from this delay caused by its predecessors in interest. Furthermore, PE-NC should not recover interest on the counsel fees awarded to it. Paragraphs 7 and 21 of the mortgage are inconsistent regarding whether interest could be recovered on counsel fees. Since “ambiguities in a contractual instrument will be resolved contra proferentem, against the party who prepared or presented it” … , this ambiguity must be resolved against PE-NC, whose predecessors in interest presented the mortgage. Moreover, interest awarded under paragraph 7 of the mortgage, on money advanced to protect the lender’s rights in the property, should not have been awarded at the rate of 17%, but at the “Note rate,” which, in this case, was 7.25%.

“An award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to a contractual provision may only be enforced to the extent that the amount is reasonable and warranted for the services actually rendered. In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, the court must consider such factors as the time, effort, and skill required; the difficulty of the questions presented; counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation; the fee customarily charged in the locality; and the contingency or certainty of compensation” … . In this case, a determination must be made on the reasonableness of the counsel fees, following a hearing on that issue, if necessary. Greenpoint Mtge. Corp. v Lamberti, 2017 NY Slip Op 08353, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

FORECLOSURE (INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FORECLOSURE, INTEREST, FEES, INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST (FORECLOSURE, ATTORNEY’S FEES, INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default in this foreclosure proceeding. Defendant’s counsel had neglected to file opposing papers when plaintiff moved for summary judgment and moved to vacate the default a month later. The failure to answer the motion was deemed excusable. The First Department found merit in defendant’s allegations of flaws in the notice provided by the bank, flaws in the bank’s proof of standing, and flaws in the bank’s proof the note was lost:

​

The borrower’s prior counsel acknowledged that he failed to submit opposition to the summary judgment motion after stipulating to adjourn that motion. However, counsel moved to vacate the default less than one month after Supreme Court’s decision was entered. Absent a pattern of dilatory behavior, the default was an excusable, one-time oversight, resulting in no prejudice … . …

​

The borrower raised a colorable notice defense regarding plaintiff’s service of the mortgage’s 30-day default notice and the requisite 90-day notice under RPAPL 1304 … . … [T]he affidavit of plaintiff’s servicing agent failed to indicate that she had familiarity with standard office mailing procedures … . * * *

​

Plaintiff seeks to foreclose the principal sum of $327,828.34, but there are gaps in its proof. * * *

There is also a question as to the sufficiency of the content of the lost note affidavit submitted on summary judgment. The affidavit * * * does not state when the search was made or by whom, and does not indicate approximately when the note was lost. Therefore, the borrower has demonstrated a potentially meritorious standing defense … . US Bank N.A. v Richards, 2017 NY Slip Op 08299, First Dept 11-28-17

 

FORECLOSURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VACATE DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAULT (FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff could foreclose on a mortgage despite the initial fraudulent transfer of the property and the absence of the note:

…[P]laintiff Peter Weiss seeks, among other things, a foreclosure and sale based on a Mortgage and Note Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA) executed by defendant Edward Phillips. Plaintiff lent $500,000 to borrowers who purported to own the real estate property they sought to mortgage. The borrowers signed a note, in which they promised to pay the loan, and a mortgage, in which they gave the plaintiff/lender a security interest in the property they purported to own. The borrowers, however, acquired the property by fraudulent means. After the rightful owner, Phillips, reacquired the property, he executed the CEMA with the individual lender, Weiss. Pursuant to the CEMA, Phillips acknowledged Weiss’s rights under the note and mortgage; and, Weiss agreed to forbear from foreclosing on the subject property for a year, presumably to permit Phillips to obtain refinancing.

… [W]e find that Weiss’s interest in the property as a mortgagee was not rendered null and void because his borrowers, the mortgagors, had acquired the property by fraudulent means. In addition, we find that Weiss met his burden for summary judgment, on his claim for foreclosure and sale, by submitting the Mortgage and CEMA, along with undisputed evidence establishing both the existence of the note, which obviated the need to submit the note as proof that Weiss had the right to foreclose, and the nonpayment. * * *

UCC 3-804 allows one to maintain an action as a “holder” on a promissory note even though the instrument has been lost or destroyed. The section does not apply here where it is established that plaintiff has the right to sue on the note as the undisputed “holder” of the note. * * *

Forged deeds and/or encumbrances are those executed under false pretenses, and are void ab initio … . The interests of subsequent bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers for value are thus not protected under Real Property Law § 266 when their title is derived from a forged deed or one that is the product of false pretenses … . In contrast, a fraudulently induced deed is merely voidable, not void … . Weiss v Phillips, 2017 NY Slip Op 08209, First Dept 11-21-17

FORECLOSURE (DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (DEEDS, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORECLOSURE, HOLDER OF THE NOTE, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/HOLDER (NOTE, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORECLOSURE, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/DEEDS (VOIDABLE, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))

,

PARTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE READ A SIGNED DOCUMENT, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON THIS CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE PROPERLY GRANTED, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the judgment of foreclosure and sale was properly granted. Defendant claimed he was tricked into signing the construction mortgage. The Second Department noted that a construction mortgage is not subject to the requirements of Banking Law §§ 6-l and 590. And the Second Department held that a party is deemed to have read a signed document:

 

“A party who executes a contract is presumed to know its contents and to assent to them”… .Thus, “[a] party who signs a document without any valid excuse for having failed to read it is conclusively bound by its terms” … , “unless there is a showing of fraud, duress, or some other wrongful act on the part of any party to the contract” … . “The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish the element of justifiable reliance on alleged misrepresentations … , since the documents were provided to him, and he and his attorney could have read them. Nor has the defendant established any other valid excuse for his purported failure to read the construction mortgage and related documents before signing them. Prompt Mtge. Providers of N. Am., LLC v Zarour, 2017 NY Slip Op 08028, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

FORECLOSURE (PARTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE READ A SIGNED DOCUMENT, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON THIS CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/BANKING LAW (FORECLOSURE, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORECLOSURE, PARTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE READ A SIGNED DOCUMENT, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON THIS CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MORTGAGES (CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGES, FORECLOSURE, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank should have been allowed to amend its complaint in this foreclosure action to add parties and extend the reach of the action to the entire premises. There was evidence a party acquired title to the entire premises by adverse possession:

​

In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted “unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Moreover, pursuant to CPLR 1003, “[p]arties may be added at any stage of the action by leave of court” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s proposed cause of action was not “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . RPAPL 1501 provides that any person who “claims an estate or interest in real property’ may maintain an action against any other person . . . to compel the determination of any claim adverse to that of the plaintiff which the defendant makes, or which it appears from the public records, . . . the defendant might make'”… . Pursuant to RPAPL 1501(5), the interest held by any mortgagee of real property is an “interest in real property” as that phrase is used in article 15… . Thus, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff, as mortgagee of the subject premises, asserted a cause of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL 1501 based on its claim that the mortgage encumbered the entire premises because the mortgagor acquired title to the entire premises by adverse possession … . Moreover, the plaintiff properly sought leave to amend the summons and complaint to add as defendants certain persons who might claim interests in the premises that are adverse to its own interest. Emigrant Sav. Bank v Walters, 2017 NY Slip Op 07976, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE POSSESSION (FORECLOSURE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))

STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate it had met the statutory notice requirements of the Real Property Actions and Proceeding Law (RPAPL). Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied:

​

RPAPL 1304 notice “shall be sent by [the] lender, assignee (including purchasing investor) or mortgage loan servicer to the borrower, by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower, and to the residence that is the subject of the mortgage” (RPAPL 1304[2]). Proper service of a RPAPL 1304 notice containing the statutorily-mandated content is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and plaintiff has the burden of establishing its strict compliance with this condition … .

​

Plaintiff failed to establish that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of its loan servicer, supported by copies of the 90-day notice it alleges was served and a copy of the unsigned, undated return receipt. These documents were insufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In the affidavit, the loan servicer’s vice president of loan documentation fails to demonstrate a familiarity with the servicer’s mailing practices and procedures. Therefore, plaintiff did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure … . Moreover, portions of the receipt in the record are blank, and an undated and unsigned return receipt is not sufficient to establish proof of the actual mailing … . HSBC Bank USA v Rice, 2017 NY Slip Op 07936, First Dept 11-14-17

 

FORECLOSURE (STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed this foreclosure action as abandoned because the bank moved for an order of reference within one year of the default:

​

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” However, “[i]t 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 purpose of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) … . “[A]s long as proceedings are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case should not be subject to dismissal” … . This is so even where, as here, a timely motion for an order of reference is subsequently withdrawn … .

​

Here, 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]) … within one year of the defendant’s default. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not abandon the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mayen, 2017 NY Slip Op 07768, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/ABANDONMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (c)  (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))

,

AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a dissent, determined plaintiff bank (BOA) was entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action. At issue was whether an affidavit (by Mattera) in support of a prior summary judgment proceeding satisfied the the operative Administrative Order and the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

​

Administrative Order 431/11 … requires the plaintiff’s counsel in a residential mortgage foreclosure action to file an affirmation confirming that he or she communicated with a representative of the plaintiff who confirmed the factual accuracy of the plaintiff’s pleadings, supporting documentation and submissions to the court … . …

To fulfill his obligations under Administrative Order 431/11, plaintiff’s counsel submitted an affidavit that comported with the form provided in Administrative Order 431/11. Counsel stated that … he had communicated with Mattera … . …

The dissent finds this affidavit deficient, stating that “because Mattera’s affidavits do not establish a complete review of, or the indicia of reliability necessary to lay a business records foundation for, the records pre-dating … acquisition of defendant’s mortgage, counsel may not rely upon alleged communications with Mattera to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Order.” However, defendant, who has continued to reside on the premises for the last 10 years without paying her mortgage, did not dispute her default or challenge the accuracy or sufficiency of Mattera’s affidavit on the third summary judgment motion.

Furthermore, CLPR 4518(a) does not require a person to have personal knowledge of each of the facts asserted in the affidavit of merit put before the court as evidence of a defendant’s default in payment … . Thus, in seeking to enforce a loan, an assignee of an original lender or intermediary predecessor may use an original loan file prepared by its assignor, when it relies upon those records in the regular course of its business… ..

Here, Mattera … satisfied these standards … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Brannon, 2017 NY Slip Op 07578, First Dept 10-31-17

FORECLOSURE (AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, FORECLOSURE, AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE, FORECLOSURE, AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact was raised whether plaintiff bank was aware defendants observed Saturday as a holy day, thereby invalidating nail and mail service on Saturday in this foreclosure action:

​

General Business Law § 13 provides: “Whoever maliciously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday, upon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a party to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The defendants contend that the plaintiff’s counsel was aware that they are observant, Orthodox Jewish persons who adhere to the Sabbath, and thus, the Saturday affixation of process to the door of their residence was invalid. This appears to be an issue of first impression for this Court. We agree with the other courts that have addressed the issue, which have consistently held, for more than a century, that service in violation of General Business Law § 13, or its predecessor statute, is void, and personal jurisdiction is not obtained over the party served … . Moreover, we hold that the statute applies not only to personal service upon a defendant, but also to the affixation portion of “nail and mail” service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) on the door of a defendant’s residence, as occurred here … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lilker, 2017 NY Slip Op 06434, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))/NAIL AND MAIL (GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NAIL AND MAIL, QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT))

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