You are here: / Foreclosure
,

BANK WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it had standing to foreclose. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Among other failings, the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule were not met:

​

Here, the plaintiff produced the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the appellant’s default. However, the plaintiff failed, prima facie, to establish its standing. Where, as here, the note has been endorsed in blank, the purported holder of the note must establish its standing by demonstrating that the original note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action … . The plaintiff attempted to establish its standing through the affidavit of Myron D. Keyes, Vice President Loan Documentation of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the servicing agent to the plaintiff. However, Keyes averred only that the plaintiff was “in possession of” the note. The plaintiff subsequently submitted a further affidavit from April J. Linn, another Vice President Loan Documentation of Wells Fargo. Unlike Keyes, Linn submitted documentary evidence showing that Wells Fargo was appointed the plaintiff’s servicing agent on February 21, 2014. Linn further averred, based on her familiarity with the business records maintained by Wells Fargo, that the plaintiff “had possession of the [note] as of November 28, 2006.” However, Linn’s affidavit failed, among other things, to explain how a review of the business records of a servicing agent appointed in 2014 could prove that the plaintiff had obtained physical possession of the note more than seven years earlier. In sum, Keyes’ affidavit, as well as Linn’s subsequent affidavit, provided neither sufficient factual details to establish the physical delivery of the note to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of this action … , nor the foundational knowledge required to admit such factual details under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Brody, 2017 NY Slip Op 08873, Second Dept 12-20-17

FORECLOSURE (STANDING, EVIDENCE, BANK WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, BANK WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION,  BANK WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (HEARSAY EXCEPTION, FORECLOSURE, BANK WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure proceeding could not be entertained because issue had not been joined, only a notice of appearance had been filed by defendant. The action was properly deemed abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference. “A motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined (CPLR 3212[a]) and the requirement is strictly adhered to” … . Where, as here, a defendant has served a notice of appearance, but has not served “a responsive pleading,” in this case, an answer (see CPLR 3011), issue has not been joined, and the plaintiff is barred from seeking summary judgment … . …

Here, the defendants were served with the summons and complaint on December 30, 2010. The defendant had “twenty days after service of the summons” to appear “by serving an answer or a notice of appearance, or by making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer” (CPLR 320[a]). … [T]he plaintiff’s time to bring a motion for leave to enter a default judgment expired on February 3, 2012, a year after the defendants’ default, but the plaintiff did not make such a motion until January 2015.

The plaintiff contends that the “sufficient cause shown” standard was met by the “significant delay” caused by an improper stipulation of discontinuance that was filed on February 22, 2013, and the proceedings it had to take to obtain an order dated August 15, 2013, vacating the stipulation and restoring the action to the calendar. However, … actions taken in 2013 and thereafter “offer no excuse as to why no action was taken within one year of the default, as required by statute.” In fact, this Court has held that “[a]n excuse which matures after the expiration of the statutory limit for entering a default judgment with the Clerk is legally insufficient to justify a plaintiff’s failure to enter the default judgment” … . For the same reason, there is no merit to the plaintiff’s argument that the same proceedings in 2013 established that it had not abandoned the action … . JBBNY, LLC v Begum, 2017 NY Slip Op 08816, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

FORECLOSURE (MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, JOINDER OF ISSUE, ABANDONMENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT)))/NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (FORECLOSURE, JOINDER OF ISSUE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT))/JOINDER OF ISSUE (NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT))/ABANDONMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (FORECLOSURE, ABANDONMENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT))

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 90-DAY DEMAND AND OVERALL DELAY AND NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined this foreclosure proceeding was properly dismissed for failure to comply with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b)(3):

​

Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), that plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period … . The plaintiff failed to do either within the 90-day period. Therefore, in order to excuse the default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for its failure to timely file the note of issue or move to either vacate the demand or extend the 90-day period, as well as a potentially meritorious cause of action… . Nevertheless, it has been said that CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving” … , “in that it never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action based on the plaintiff’s unreasonable neglect to proceed” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff took no action whatsoever in the five years from the time the case was released from the foreclosure settlement part on October 15, 2009, until the defendant served his 90-day demand on October 10, 2014. Moreover, after failing to comply with the 90-day deadline, the plaintiff took no action for five months before belatedly filing a note of issue. The plaintiff failed to provide a justifiable excuse for its delay in filing a note of issue and failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action. The plaintiff’s further contention that dismissal was too harsh a sanction, and that a lesser sanction was more appropriate under the circumstances, is unavailing, given the plaintiff’s “pattern[ ] of persistent neglect, a history of extensive delay, evidence of an intent to abandon prosecution and lack of any tenable excuse for such delay”  … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Inga, 2017 NY Slip Op 08810, Second Department 12-20-17\

 

FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 90-DAY DEMAND AND OVERALL DELAY AND NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 90-DAY DEMAND AND OVERALL DELAY AND NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216(b)(3) (FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 90-DAY DEMAND AND OVERALL DELAY AND NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT))/ABANDONMENT OF ACTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 90-DAY DEMAND AND OVERALL DELAY AND NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 90-DAY DEMAND AND OVERALL DELAY AND NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE A LATE ANSWER PURSUANT TO CPLR 3012 AFTER A DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY DENIED, FIVE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED EXPLAINED, ALLEGATION DEFENDANTS WERE CHEATED WAS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined defendants’ motion to file a late answer in this foreclosure proceeding was properly denied. Shortly after giving their son, Luigi, powers of attorney, Luigi took out a mortgage to buy a condominium, using his parents’ (defendants’) home as collateral. Luigi defaulted and eventually the foreclosure action was started. After a default in the foreclosure proceedings, the defendants hired counsel and moved to file a late answer. The First Department went through each of the five factors to be considered, noting that the defendants’ claim to have first learned of the mortgage when they were served in the foreclosure action was not credible, and the allegation defendants were cheated by their son is not a defense (the powers of attorney were not fraudulently obtained):

​

Under CPLR 3012(d), a trial court has the discretionary power to extend the time to plead, or to compel acceptance of an untimely pleading “upon such terms as may be just,” provided that there is a showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay. In reviewing a discretionary determination, the proper inquiry is whether the court providently exercised its discretion.

In Artcorp Inc. v Citirich Realty Corp. (140 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2016]), we adopted the factors set forth in Guzetti v City of New York (32 AD3d 234, 238 (id.) [1st Dept 2006] [McGuire, J., concurring]) as those that “must . . . be considered and balanced” in determining whether a CPLR 3012(d) ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion. Those factors include the [*4]length of the delay, the excuse offered, the extent to which the delay was willful, the possibility of prejudice to adverse parties, and the potential merits of any defense … . * * *

​

Of these five factors, three — – the lack of a potential meritorious defense, which is the most notable, the length of the delay, and the willfulness of the default — weigh against granting the motion. The remaining factors, whether the delay was excusable and whether there was any possibility of prejudice to an adverse party, are arguably neutral. Therefore, considering and weighing the five Artcorp/Guzzetti factors, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the … motion. Emigrant Bank v Rosabianca, 2017 NY Slip Op 08716, First Dept 12-14-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LATE ANSWER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE A LATE ANSWER PURSUANT TO CPLR 3012 AFTER A DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY DENIED, FIVE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED EXPLAINED, ALLEGATION DEFENDANTS WERE CHEATED WAS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT))/LATE ANSWER (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE A LATE ANSWER PURSUANT TO CPLR 3012 AFTER A DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY DENIED, FIVE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED EXPLAINED, ALLEGATION DEFENDANTS WERE CHEATED WAS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE A LATE ANSWER PURSUANT TO CPLR 3012 AFTER A DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY DENIED, FIVE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED EXPLAINED, ALLEGATION DEFENDANTS WERE CHEATED WAS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT))

,

BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure proceeding and therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its standing … . In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Dara Foye, a document coordinator for Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC … , the loan servicer. Foye averred, based on her review of Bayview’s business records, that the original, endorsed consolidated note was delivered to the plaintiff on January 24, 2007, and that the plaintiff “maintained possession of the original note since that date up until and including the date the action was commenced on May 24, 2010.” However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Foye under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since Foye did not attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff … . The plaintiff also failed to establish its standing based on the purported assignment of the note and mortgage to it by MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.], as it failed to submit any evidence establishing delivery or assignment of the note to MERS prior to its execution of the assignment to the plaintiff … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Alli, 2017 NY Slip Op 08501, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS, (BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE, BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS, BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 [a] (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE, BUSINESS RECORDS, BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

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))

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