You are here: / Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)
,

ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE WHEN IT WAS SENT, IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VERSION OF THE STATUTE IN EFFECT WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was sufficient at the time it was served, it did not meet the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements at the time the action was brought:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . “Where an RPAPL 1304 notice fails to reflect information mandated by the statute, . . . the statute will not have been strictly complied with and the notice will not be valid” … .

Here, although the language in a 90-day notice sent … in November 2016 complied with the language set forth in RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the time the notice was mailed … , the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the notice complied with the language set forth in RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the time this action was commenced in December 2018 … . Since there was more than a two-year period between the time that the notice was sent and the time that the action was commenced, “[n]othing prevented the plaintiff from sending the defendant a new RPAPL 1304 notice, using the updated language, 90 days prior to commencing this action” … . Accordingly, as the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Scarso, 2025 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with. Here the RPAP 1304 notice of foreclosure complied with the statute when it was sent, but not when the action was commenced. The bank’s summary judgment motion should have been denied.

 

, , ,

PLAINITFF’S AGENTS WHO MAILED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; ALSO, THE AFFIDAVIT PROVIDED NO FOUNDATION FOR SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FROM A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in this foreclosure action to demonstrate the proper mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was deficient, requiring denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit of Connie Melendez, an employee of the plaintiff. … Melendez’s affidavit failed to establish that notice was sent … in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. While Melendez averred that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedures and described those purported procedures, she acknowledged that the mailings were carried out “by and through [the plaintiff’s] agents.” However, Melendez did not identify who those agents were or attest that she was familiar with their standard office mailing procedures. Thus, Melendez’s affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, Melendez’s affidavit failed to address the nature of the plaintiff’s relationship with a certain third-party vendor and whether the third-party vendor’s records were incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records or routinely relied upon in the plaintiff’s business … . Thus, Melendez’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for the admission of a transaction report generated by the third-party vendor … . Finally, “the tracking numbers on the copies of the . . . notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . Likewise, a “Proof of Filing Statement” from the New York State Banking Department pursuant to RPAPL 1306 failed to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . For the same reasons, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage agreement was properly transmitted prior to the commencement of this action … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Ricks, 2025 NY Slip Op 04728, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: Agents who mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice were not identified in plaintiff’s affidavit and plaintiff’s relationship with a third party vendor was not demonstrated. Therefore the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove proper mailing of the notice of foreclosure and did not demonstrate compliance with related provisions in the mortgage agreement.

 

,

STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS REQUIRED; HERE THE BANK FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT SENT RPAPL 1304 NOTICES ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY TO DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to comply with the notice of foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304 precluded summary judgment:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304(2) states that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice” … .

… [A] “‘defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time'” prior to the entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . … [T]he plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with the service requirements of RPAPL 1304. … [T]he plaintiff failed to show that it sent RPAPL 1304 notices addressed individually to each of those defendants as required by the statute … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Stein, 2025 NY Slip Op 04638, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: Strict compliance with the notice of foreclosure provisions of RPAPL 1304 is required. The notices must be sent to defendants individually.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the judge did not have the power to sua sponte cancel and discharge the mortgage. After trial, the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed because the bank failed to demonstrate standing to foreclose and failed to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. The court may grant relief warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief “if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, in his answer, the defendant sought, among other things, dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him but did not seek cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. Thus, the court’s sua sponte directive to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage was dramatically unlike the relief requested … . Moreover, the proof adduced at trial did not support the relief granted … , and the plaintiff was prejudiced, since it was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the propriety of the relief granted, which deprived it of its security interest in the premises … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Amigon, 2025 NY Slip Op 04536, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Here, although the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed on defendant’s motion after trial, the judge did not have the authority to cancel and discharge the mortgage, relief that was not requested by the defendant.

 

, , ,

IN A FORECLOSURE CONTEXT, THE BANK, WHEN MOVING FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, GETS TWO CHANCES TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY; IF THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS DEEMED INADEQUATE, THE BANK MUST BE ALLOWED TO TRY AGAIN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action should have been given a second opportunity to present evidence of the value of the property for purposes of a deficiency judgment:

A lender in a foreclosure action moving for a deficiency judgment “bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, the property’s fair market value as of the date of the auction sale” … . Upon a lender’s motion for a deficiency judgment, RPAPL 1371(2) provides, in part: “the court, whether or not the respondent appears, shall determine, upon affidavit or otherwise as it shall direct, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises as of the date such premises were bid in at auction or such nearest earlier date as there shall have been any market value thereof and shall make an order directing the entry of a deficiency judgment.”

The Court of Appeals has interpreted this provision as “a directive that a court must determine the mortgaged property’s ‘fair and reasonable market value’ when a motion for a deficiency judgment is made. As such, when the court deems the lender’s proof insufficient in the first instance, it must give the lender an additional opportunity to submit sufficient proof, so as to enable the court to make a proper fair market value determination” … . Valley Natl. Bank v 252 W. 31 St. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04528, First Dept 7-31-25

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the bank is seeking a deficiency judgment it gets two shots at proving the value of the property.

 

,

RPAPL 1306 REQUIRES INFORMATION TO BE FILED WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE FILING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; HERE THE FILING WAS EIGHT DAYS LATE, REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was entitled to dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to timely file the information required by RPAPL 1306. The information must be filed within three business days of the mailing of the foreclosure notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304:

“Compliance with RPAPL 1306 is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . “RPAPL 1306 requires that within three business days of the mailing of the foreclosure notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304(1), each lender or assignee ‘shall file’ certain information with the superintendent of financial services” … . “[S]trict compliance” with the statutory requirement of making the appropriate filing within three business days of the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice is required … .

… [I]t is undisputed that the plaintiff did not make the requisite filing pursuant to RPAPL 1306 until … eight business days after the purported mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice … . Since the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the statutory requirement of making the appropriate filing within three business days of the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Peralta, 2025 NY Slip Op 03790, Second Dept 6-25-25

Same issue and result in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Goetz, 2025 NY Slip Op 03792, Second Dept 6-25-25

Practice Point: The bank’s failure to file the information required by RPAPL 1306 within three business days of the mailing of the notice of foreclosure mandates dismissal of the foreclosure action.​

 

, ,

RPAPL 1304 REQUIRES THAT THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE BE MAILED SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER; HERE THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO BOTH BORROWERS IN A SINGLE ENVELOPE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The bank did not prove its “strict compliance” with the notice of foreclosure provisions of RPAPL 1304:

RPAPL 1304 requires that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in the statute, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer give notice to the borrower. The statute prescribes the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower … . “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … , “and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “[T]he mailing of a 90-day notice jointly addressed to two or more borrowers in a single envelope is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of RPAPL 1304, and . . . the plaintiff must separately mail a 90-day notice to each borrower as a condition precedent to commencing the foreclosure action” … .

Here, in support of its motion, among other things, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Esther, Wilmington failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Although the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed to the borrowers by both certified and first-class mail, Wilmington failed to establish that Wells Fargo sent a 90-day notice individually addressed to each borrower in a separate envelope, as required by the statute … . Instead, as 1900 Capital concedes, the RPAPL 1304 notice was not mailed individually, in a separate envelope, to Esther. Rather, the envelope purportedly providing the RPAPL 1304 notice to Esther was jointly addressed to her and Marvin in one envelope. This was insufficient to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Welz, 2025 NY Slip Op 03355, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: The “notice of foreclosure” provisions in RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with. Here the bank mailed the notice to both borrowers in a single envelope. The statute requires separate mailings to each borrower. Therefore the bank was not entitled to summary judgment.

 

, ,

THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES AND DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE ATTACHED BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS PROPERLY MAILED, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure, determined the plaintiff did not prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure, a condition precedent for foreclosure. The affidavit did not demonstrate the affiant had personal knowledge of the relevant mailing procedures and did not provide an adequate foundation for relevant business records:

… [T]he affidavits submitted in support of Bank of America’s second motion … for summary judgment on the complaint … did not establish the affiants’ personal knowledge of the standard office mailing procedures of LenderLive, the third-party vendor that apparently sent the RPAPL 1304 notices on behalf of Bank of America … . The affidavits also “failed to address the nature of [Bank of America’s] relationship with LenderLive and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into [Bank of America’s] own records or routinely relied upon in its business” … . Bank of America thus “failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive” … .. Accordingly, Bank of America failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of Bank of America’s second motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference. U.S. Bank N.A. v Bravo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02953, Second Dept 5-14-25

Same issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2025 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Any affidavit submitted by the bank in a foreclosure action to prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure must demonstrate the affiant’s personal knowledge of the mailing procedures and must lay a foundation for the admissibility of any business records relied upon to prove proper mailing.

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE OF THE ROADWAY WAS PERMISSIVE, AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILE USE FOR THE REQUIRED TEN YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT WERE NOT MET; HOWEVER BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE WAS PERMISSIVE AND CONTINUED FOR 50 YEARS, THE CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY ESTOPPEL WERE MET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over defendants’ properties, but did have an easement by estoppel. Because there was an agreement among the original owners of the three adjacent camps to construct, maintain and use a roadway providing vehicular access to all three camps, and because there had been no hostile use of the roadway for ten years, the requirements for a prescriptive easement were not met. However plaintiffs were entitled to an easement by estoppel. The court noted that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to an easement by estoppel:

[Re; a prescriptive easement] … [B]ecause plaintiffs’ predecessors’ use of the extension was permissive, the element of hostility was negated … . Therefore, no adverse use could have arisen until there was the assertion of a hostile right … , which, at the earliest, occurred in 2018. We are presented with a permissive use that did not ripen into a prescriptive one for the time required … .

Yet, these same facts establish plaintiffs’ entitlement to an easement by estoppel … . “An easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner’s representation that an easement exists” … . The uncontested existence of the agreement between the parties’ predecessors for the construction and use of the extension, together with the time and expense of not only the initial construction but, also, the continued 50-year maintenance thereof, demonstrates that plaintiffs “undertook . . . action[s] to their detriment in reasonable reliance upon a representation that they held an easement” … . Sardino v Scholet Family Irrevocable Trust, 2025 NY Slip Op 02828, Third Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for clear illustrations of the criteria for a prescriptive easement and an easement by estoppel.

 

, ,

THE DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS NOT AN EXPRESS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION DID NOT VALIDLY ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE, HERE, THE 2013 FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred. The bank’s argument that the the foreclosure complaint filed in 2013 did not accelerate the debt was rejected. The 2013 action was dismissed in 2018 because the bank did not comply with the notice of default requirement in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304. That dismissal did not constitute an express judicial finding that the debt had not been validly accelerated when the 2013 complaint was filed:

Deutsche Bank’s argument that the complaint in the 2013 action did not constitute a valid acceleration of the debt is precluded by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (hereinafter FAPA) … . FAPA amended CPLR 213(4) to provide that in an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage, “a defendant shall be estopped from asserting that the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action upon the instrument has not expired because the instrument was not validly accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated” … . Here, the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint in the 2013 action upon a determination that Deutsche Bank failed to establish … its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The mailing of a RPAPL 1304 notice, while a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, is not a precondition for acceleration of the debt … , and thus, the 2013 action was not dismissed upon an expressed judicial determination that the debt was not validly accelerated. Brennan v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 2025 NY Slip Op 02308, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: A foreclosure action is time-barred six years after the debt was accelerated by the filing of the complaint, unless there is an express judicial determination that the filing of the complaint did not accelerate the debt. A dismissal of the foreclosure action based upon the bank’s failure to comply with the RPAPL 1304 notice of default requirements is not an express judicial determination that the foreclosure complaint did not validly accelerate the debt. Therefore, in this case, the 2013 foreclosure action, which was dismissed in 2018 for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, is time-barred.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy