You are here: / Foreclosure
,

BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE.

The Second Department determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied because the bank did not submit sufficient proof of possession of the note and mortgage at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. The proof did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. That affiant did not attest she was personally familiar with the plaintiff-bank’s record-keeping practices and procedures:

Here, the plaintiff attempted to establish its standing by submitting the affidavit of Angela Frye, Vice President of Loan Documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the servicer of the defendant’s loan on behalf of the plaintiff. Frye averred, in relevant part, that she “reviewed the books and records regularly maintained by Wells Fargo in the ordinary course of its business as servicer of Defendant’s loan for and on behalf of the Trust,” and that “Wells Fargo’s regularly maintained records reflect that both the original Note … and the Mortgage were physically delivered to the Trust prior to the commencement of this action.” The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Frye were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) because Frye, an employee of Wells Fargo, did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 2016 NY Slip Op 05906, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

FORECLOSURE (BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE)/BUSINESS RECORDS (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE)

REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s alleged setting of an “upset price” which violated Kings County Supreme Court Civil Term Rules did not warrant setting aside the foreclosure sale:

RPAPL 231 provides, in relevant part, that a court, within one year after a foreclosure sale, “may set the sale aside for failure to comply with the provisions of this section as to the notice, time or manner of such sale if a substantial right of a party was prejudiced by the defect” (RPAPL 231[6]). ” In the exercise of its equitable powers, a court has the discretion to set aside a foreclosure sale where there is evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct'” … . In order to provide a basis for setting aside a sale, the evidence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct must cast suspicion on the fairness of the sale … . Furthermore, evidence of a unilateral mistake at the foreclosure sale, without more, does not provide a basis to invalidate a sale that was otherwise lawfully conducted … , and belated and unsubstantiated claims are insufficient to establish the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake, or misconduct … . Moreover, mere irregularities by a referee may be disregarded if they do not affect a substantial right of a party … . Clinton Hill Holding 1, LLC v Kathy & Tania, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05844, 1st Dept 8-24-16

FORECLOSURE (REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE)

,

DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT.

The First Department determined a deed which was security for a debt constituted a mortgage. Therefore, foreclosure proceedings under the Real Property Law were triggered by default on the debt:

Real Property Law § 320 codifies the common-law principle that the giving of a deed to secure a debt, in whatever form and however structured, creates nothing more than a mortgage … . “The courts are steadfast in holding that a conveyance, whatever its form, if in fact given to secure a debt, is neither an absolute nor a conditional sale, but a mortgage, and that the grantor and grantee have merely the rights and are subject only to the obligations of mortgagor and mortgagee” … . “Significantly, the statute does not require a conclusive showing that the transfer was intended as security; it is sufficient that the conveyance appears to be intended only as a security in the nature of a mortgage” … . “In determining whether a deed was intended as security, examination may be made not only of the deed and a written agreement executed at the same time, but also of oral testimony bearing on the intent of the parties and to a consideration of the surrounding circumstances and acts of the parties” … . Patmos Fifth Real Estate Inc. v Mazl Bldg., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04804, 1st Dept 6-16-16

REAL PROPERTY LAW (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)/FORECLOSURE (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)/DEEDS (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)/MORTGAGES (DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT)

,

TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank's taking timely steps to proceed to judgment after a default in this foreclosure action were sufficient to avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned:

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 purposes 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, the timely motion for an order of reference was subsequently withdrawn … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Traore, 2016 NY Slip Op 04022, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)/FORECLOSURE (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)/ABANDONMENT OF ACTION (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)

, ,

CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGES CONSIDERED FIRST MORTGAGE OF RECORD WITH PRIORITY OVER COMMON CHARGES LIEN.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined a lien for unpaid (condominium) common charges did not take priority over the second of two Citibank mortgages which were consolidated. Plaintiff was the winning bidder in a foreclosure action commenced by the condominium board for unpaid common charges. Plaintiff took the property subject to the “first mortgage of record.” Years before the common charges lien two mortgages taken out by the previous condominium owner had been consolidated. Plaintiff argued the second of those two consolidated mortgages should be extinguished by the foreclosure action because, by statute, the lien for the common charges was subject only to the “first mortgage of record.” The Court of Appeals held the two consolidated mortgages should be considered the “first mortgage” in this context:

Given the practical realities of this case, … the agreement between Citibank and the previous unit owner to consolidate the mortgages “into a single mortgage lien,” recorded years before the common charges lien, qualifies as “the first mortgage of record.” To hold otherwise places form over substance. Indeed, the ease with which a formulaic application of the term “first mortgage of record” can be manipulated demonstrates that such holding would not promote the statutory purpose. Plotch v Citibank, N.A., 2016 NY Slip Op 03648, CtApp 5-10-16

FORECLOSURE (CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGES CONSIDERED FIRST MORTGAGE OF RECORD WITH PRIORITY OVER COMMON CHARGES LIEN)/REAL PROPERTY LAW (CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES, CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGES CONSIDERED FIRST MORTGAGE OF RECORD WITH PRIORITY OVER COMMON CHARGES LIEN)/MORTGAGES (CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES, ​CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGES CONSIDERED FIRST MORTGAGE OF RECORD WITH PRIORITY OVER COMMON CHARGES LIEN)/CONDOMINIUMS (COMMON CHARGES LIEN, ​CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGES CONSIDERED FIRST MORTGAGE OF RECORD WITH PRIORITY OVER COMMON CHARGES LIEN)

FORECLOSURE COULD PROCEED DESPITE ERRONEOUS SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE.

The Second Department determined foreclosure proceedings could proceed despite an erroneous, recorded satisfaction of mortgage:

“A mortgagee may have an erroneous discharge of mortgage, without concomitant satisfaction of the underlying mortgage debt, set aside, and have the mortgage reinstated where there has not been detrimental reliance on the erroneous recording” … . “Only bona fide purchasers and lenders for value are entitled to protection from an erroneous discharge of a mortgage based upon their detrimental reliance thereon” … . …

… [T]he complaint's factual allegations, i.e., that the plaintiff was the holder and owner of the subject note and mortgage, that the satisfaction of mortgage was erroneously executed and recorded, that the mortgage had not been satisfied, that the original mortgagor defaulted on the note and mortgage, and that the balance due under the note remained outstanding, were sufficient to set forth viable causes of action to foreclose the mortgage and to cancel and vacate the satisfaction of mortgage … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v E & G Dev. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 02988, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


, ,

THE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO A MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court’s order, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a foreclosure proceeding. Defendant alleged plaintiff, Aurora Loan Services, did not have standing to bring the action (i.e., did not have possession of the note at the time the action was commenced). Aurora Loan Services was unable to demonstrate standing because the evidence submitted did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Aurora’s summary judgment motion was therefore properly denied. However, the flaws in Aurora’s proof of standing did not entitle defendant to summary judgment on defendant’s cross motion. In the summary judgment context, the court first looks only at the moving party’s papers to determine whether the moving party has made a prima facie showing justifying summary judgment. Here the defendant’s papers did not demonstrate Aurora lacked standing. Therefore the cross motion should have been denied, notwithstanding the flaws in the plaintiff’s opposing papers.

… Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing and to cancel the notice of pendency filed against the subject property. “[T]he burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied. To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law” … . Here, the defendant, as the moving party, failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff lacked standing … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Mercius, 2016 NY Slip Op 02599, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

FORECLOSURE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, FORECLOSURE, FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, FORECLOSURE, FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS)

,

ONCE PLAINTIFF RELEASED THE MORTGAGE UPON PAYMENT OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTY BY AMENDING THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, once plaintiff agreed to release a mortgage in return for sale proceeds which were less than the value of the note, plaintiff could then commence a proceeding on the note and the guaranty. The court further held that the action on the note and guaranty could be accomplished by amending the original foreclosure complaint:

“RPAPL 1301(3) . . . prohibits a party from commencing an action at law to recover any part of the mortgage debt while the foreclosure proceeding is pending or has not reached final judgment, without leave of the court in which the foreclosure action was brought'” … . Conversely, “where a foreclosure action is no longer pending and did not result in a judgment in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff is not precluded from commencing a separate action' without leave of the court” … .

Here, since, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the plaintiff agreed to accept the net proceeds of the sale in exchange for releasing the property from the mortgage and there was no judgment in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff was not precluded from seeking to recover on the note and guaranty by RPAPL 1301(3), “a statute which must be strictly construed” … .

Furthermore, there is no reason the plaintiff could not seek such relief by seeking leave to amend its complaint, rather than by commencing a new action … . TD Bank, N.A. v 250 Jackson Ave., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01828, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/NOTE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR  (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDING COMPLAINT, AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTEE BY AMENDING THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT)

, ,

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED, LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED AND IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT.

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court's sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure complaint for lack of standing. Because the defendants did not answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the defense of lack of standing was waived. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint and discharge of the notice of pendency against the subject property for lack of standing. “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, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint and did not make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party's lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint by the court … . Consumer Solutions, LLC v Charles, 2016 NY Slip Op 01794, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED)/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED, DEFENSE WAS WAIVED AND IS NOT A JURISDICTION DEFECT)

, ,

COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to substitute nunc pro tunc an affidavit of merit and amount due in a foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff could not confirm the proper execution of the original affidavit (a requirement of an administrative order of the chief administrative judge) and sought to substitute the original with an identical affidavit, the proper execution of which could be confirmed. Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. The Fourth Department held that the dismissal was not warranted and CPLR 2001 permitted the substitution:

 

” 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, we conclude that “[t]he fact that . . . plaintiff’s [new] attorney[s] attempted to comply, in good faith, with an Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge that did not exist at the time that the action was commenced, or at the time [the judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted], does not qualify as such an extraordinary circumstance’ ” that would support a sua sponte dismissal … . Indeed, “[n]othing in the Administrative Order[] requires the dismissal of an action merely because the plaintiff’s attorney[s] discover[] that there was some irregularity or defect in a prior submission” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that plaintiff is not “effectively required to commence an entirely new action” … .

We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to substitute the affidavit of merit and amount due. “CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced” … . In addition, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party” … . Here, we conclude that the substitution of the original affidavit of merit and amount due with a new, substantively identical affidavit of merit and amount due was a ministerial amendment permitted by CPLR 2001 and CPLR 5019 (a) inasmuch as the change affected only plaintiff’s ability to comply with the Administrative Order, and “[t]he attorney affirmation is not itself substantive evidence” … . We further conclude that “[n]o substantial right of [defendant .. .would] be affected by the court’s substitution” … . Indeed, that defendant did not reside in the subject property when plaintiff commenced the mortgage foreclosure action and the property was vacant at that time, and he never joined this action nor made any effort to contest the foreclosure. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Watanabe, 2016 NY Slip Op 01096, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT AND AMOUNT DUE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)

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