You are here: / Foreclosure
,

CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the six-month extension of a statute of limitations provided by CPLR 205 (a) applied in this foreclosure action. The court summarized the rulings as follows:

Under certain conditions, CPLR 205(a) provides an additional six months in which to recommence a prior action that has been dismissed on grounds other than voluntary discontinuance, lack of personal jurisdiction, neglect to prosecute, or a final judgment on the merits. The first question in this case is whether a prior action to foreclose the same mortgage was dismissed for neglect to prosecute, a category of dismissal that renders CPLR 205(a) inapplicable. We answer this question in the negative, concluding that the prior action was not dismissed for neglect to prosecute.

The second question is more novel. We must determine whether the plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action, which was assigned the note and mortgage during the pendency of the prior foreclosure action, is entitled to the savings provision—or grace period—of CPLR 205(a) even though the prior action was commenced by a prior holder of the note. … [W]e conclude that a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action which meets all of the other requirements of the statute is entitled to the benefit of CPLR 205(a) where, as here, it is the successor in interest as the current holder of the note. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Eitani, 2017 NY Slip Op 01015, 2nd Dept 2-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION)/FORECLOSURE (CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION)

,

HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS ATTORNEY’S FEES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing must be held to assess the validity of an $80,000 attorney’s fee in a foreclosure proceeding. Supreme Court granted the fee without a hearing and without making the requisite findings:

While a hearing on counsel fees is not required when a determination can be made on the papers alone … , this is not the case here inasmuch as plaintiff’s “affidavit of services rendered . . . fail[ed] to set forth counsel’s experience, ability, and reputation, and fail[ed] to detail the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community” … . Furthermore, the itemized legal bills submitted by plaintiff are insufficient to assess the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of proof showing “the necessity of the services rendered, the benefit achieved, the difficulty of the issues involved, or any other of the considerations normally involved in calculating [counsel] fees” … .

Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s discretion in this realm and the fact that the court awarded plaintiff an amount less than what was sought, before an award of counsel fees may be fixed, “the court must possess sufficient information upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable value of the legal services rendered” … . In our view, Supreme Court did not have before it sufficient information to summarily determine the reasonableness of the sought counsel fees. Furthermore, “to permit intelligent review, a court must provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the [counsel] fee award” … . Although Supreme Court, in its order, recited the necessary factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of counsel fees, it did not provide a clear explanation for its ultimate counsel fee award. Rather, the $80,000 awarded by Supreme Court appears to derive merely from adding up all of the fees attributable to one of the attorneys who represented plaintiff — i.e., the attorney who submitted the affidavit of services — without regard to the necessary factors used to reach an award of counsel fees and with insufficient information in light of the block billing and vague and redacted time entries in the legal invoices. Accordingly, given that plaintiff’s proof was insufficient for Supreme Court to fix an award of counsel fees on the papers alone and that defendants were never afforded an opportunity in the first instance to challenge the reasonableness of the requested counsel fees, the matter must be remitted for an evidentiary hearing. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. v Point Prop. Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 00358, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

 

ATTORNEYS (FEES, FORECLOSURE, HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS ATTORNEY’S FEES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/FORECLOSURE (ATTORNEY’S FEES, HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS ATTORNEY’S FEES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the action:

In support of its motion, Arch Bay submitted the affidavit of Selena Mitcherson, an assistant vice president of Rushmore Loan Management Services (hereinafter Rushmore), the loan servicer for Arch Bay’s assignee [Wachovia]. Mitcherson averred, based upon her review of Rushmore’s business records, that “[t]he note . . . was in Plaintiff’s physical possession of the note [sic] when the action was commenced.” Under these circumstances, Arch Bay failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Mitcherson under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since Mitcherson did not attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of Wachovia … . Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 2017 NY Slip Op 00284, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

,

COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted in the interest of justice. The court explained the “interest of justice” powers in this context:

“In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . Moreover, “[a] foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . Thus, a court may rely on “its inherent authority to vacate [a judgment] in the interest of substantial justice, rather than its statutory authority under CPLR 5015(a),” as the “statutory grounds are subsumed by the court’s broader inherent authority” … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Losner, 2016 NY Slip Op 08560, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/FORECLOSURE (COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EQUITY (COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE (FORECLOSURE, COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s right to make a motion to dismiss the foreclosure cause of action as abandoned was not waived by defendant’s motion to vacate the default and file a late answer:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive the right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by moving to vacate her default and for leave to serve a late answer. “The mere fact that the legislative intent underlying CPLR 3215(c) was to prevent the plaintiffs from unreasonably delaying the determination of an action, does not foreclose the possibility that a defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to the section by his or her conduct” … . A defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by serving an answer or taking “any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance” … . However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for leave to serve an untimely answer does not constitute either a formal (see CPLR 320) or informal appearance … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 2016 NY Slip Op 08199, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FORECLOSURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/ABANDONMENT OF ACTION (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)

,

RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY BANK ATTORNEYS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DID NOT EXCEED RULEMAKING POWERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the rules promulgated by the Chief Administrative Judge, concerning the affidavits submitted by bank attorneys in foreclosure actions, did not exceed the rule-making powers of the Chief Administrative Judge and must be complied with in actions commenced before August 30, 2013 (when a new CPLR statute went into effect):

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the Chief Administrative Judge was not acting ultra vires in issuing Administrative Orders 548/10 and 431/11 (hereinafter together the Administrative Orders), but pursuant to authority delegated by the Legislature to adopt rules and orders regulating practice in the courts after consulting with the administrative board … . Moreover, the attorney affirmation itself is not substantive … and, thus, is within the authority of the Chief Administrative Judge to promulgate rules of procedure.

In addition, that the Legislature manifested a clear intent to apply the certificate of merit requirement of CPLR 3012-b only to those actions commenced on or after August 30, 2013, does not manifest an intent by the Legislature to relieve a plaintiff’s counsel of the affirmation requirement in actions commenced prior to August 30, 2013. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Izmirligil, 2016 NY Slip Op 08033, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

FORECLOSURE (RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY BANK ATTORNEYS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DID NOT EXCEED RULEMAKING POWERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED)/ATTORNEYS (FORECLOSURE, RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY BANK ATTORNEYS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DID NOT EXCEED RULEMAKING POWERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED)/EVIDENCE  (FORECLOSURE, RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY BANK ATTORNEYS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DID NOT EXCEED RULEMAKING POWERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED)

LOAN WHICH INCLUDED A SET AMOUNT DESIGNATED AS INTEREST WAS NOT USURIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Fourth Department determined the loan secured by a mortgage was not usurious. The $170,000 loan included $43,000 designated as interest. Whether the interest was usurious should have been determined based upon the term of loan, not when the foreclosure action was commenced:

In determining whether the interest charged exceeded the usury limit, courts must apply the traditional method for calculating the effective interest rate as set forth in Band Realty Co. v North Brewster, Inc. (37 NY2d 460, 462 …). According to that method, “[s]o long as all payments on account of interest did not aggregate a sum greater than the aggregate of interest that could lawfully have been earned had the debt continued to the earliest maturity date, there would be no usury” … . In applying the traditional formula, “[t]he discount, divided by the number of years in the term of the mortgage, should be added to the amount of interest due in one year, and this sum is compared to the difference between the principal and the discount in order to determine the true interest rate” … .

Applying that formula to the case at bar, which involves a five-year mortgage of $170,000 with a $43,000 “discount” with no additional interest, we add $8,600, which is one-fifth of the discount, to the interest over the first year (0%), arriving at a sum of $8,600. Comparing the $8,600 figure to the difference between the principal and the discount retained by plaintiff, i.e., $127,000, the interest rate was 6.77% per annum. That interest rate is well below the civil usury rate of 16% per annum … . Canal v Munassar, 2016 NY Slip Op 07793, 4th Dept 11-18-16

FORECLOSURE (LOAN WHICH INCLUDED A SET AMOUNT DESIGNATED AS INTEREST WAS NOT USURIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/MORTGAGES (LOAN WHICH INCLUDED A SET AMOUNT DESIGNATED AS INTEREST WAS NOT USURIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/USURY (LOAN WHICH INCLUDED A SET AMOUNT DESIGNATED AS INTEREST WAS NOT USURIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff loan service did not demonstrate standing to bring this foreclosure action. The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. In addition, an affidavit submitted with the reply papers could not be considered:

…[T]he plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jaclyn Holloway, an assistant secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar). Holloway alleged that, after the action was commenced, the plaintiff delivered the note to NationStar. She alleged that, “pursuant to the business records of [the plaintiff],” the plaintiff had physical possession of the note when it commenced the action. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Holloway under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) since Holloway did not attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff … . Consequently, Holloway’s allegations based on those records were inadmissible … , and, therefore, insufficient to meet the plaintiff’s prima facie burden to establish its standing … .

The plaintiff could not rely on the affidavit of its vice president to meet its prima facie burden since the affidavit was improperly submitted for the first time in its reply papers … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz, 2016 NY Slip Op 07154, 2nd Dept 11-2-16

 

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/REPLY PAPERS (PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING FAILED BECAUSE THE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED)/

,

FALSE INFORMATION IN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BUT NOT DISMISSAL.

The Second Department determined false information in the attorney affidavit submitted by the plaintiff bank warranted denial of the motion for a judgment of foreclosure, but did not warrant dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and cancellation of the notice of pendency:

The Administrative Order requires the attorney to attest that the papers “contain no false statements of fact or law” (Administrative Order 548/10). A plaintiff’s failure to file the mandatory attorney affirmation in compliance with the Administrative Order warrants denial of a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . Here, since the subject affirmation contained an apparently false statement of fact, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice to renew (see CPLR 2001).

However, the Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and in directing the cancellation of the notice of pendency. “A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, there were no extraordinary circumstances … . Downey Sav. & Loan Assn., F.A. v Trujillo, 2016 NY Slip Op 06058, 2nd Dept  9-21-16

 

FORECLOSURE (FALSE INFORMATION IN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BUT NOT DISMISSAL)/ATTORNEYS (FALSE INFORMATION IN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BUT NOT DISMISSAL)

,

FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff bank failed to satisfy the foundation for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Although the affiant (Roesner) stated he was familiar with the successor-in-interest’s record keeping system, he did not allege he was familiar with the plaintiff bank’s record keeping practices and procedures:

Roesner averred, inter alia, that his knowledge of the relevant facts was based on his “examination of the financial books and business records made in the ordinary course of business maintained by or on behalf of the successor in interest to the Plaintiff,” and that he was “familiar with the record keeping systems that [the] successor in interest to the Plaintiff and/or its loan servicer use[d] to record and create information related to the residential mortgage loans that it services.” …

* * * On its motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, by proof in admissible form, its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Roesner under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), and, thus, failed to establish the appellant’s default in payment under the note. “A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures”… . Roesner, who was employed by the loan servicer …, did not allege that he was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record keeping practices and procedures. Thus, Roesner failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the appellant’s payment history… . HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal, 2016 NY Slip Op 05973, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

FORECLOSURE (FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE, (FORECLOSURE. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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