You are here: Home / Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

DEFENDANT’S BARE DENIAL OF THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s bare denial of the receipt of notice of the foreclosure action was not a sufficient basis for granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment:

The bare denial by the defendant … of receipt of a notice of default, required to be served by the terms of the mortgage, and a notice required by RPAPL 1304 is insufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Mendick, 2020 NY Slip Op 00262, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because plaintiff’s standing, defendants’ default, and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 were not proven. The Second Department explained the proof requirements for each:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show that the note was properly endorsed and thus validly transferred to it … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff also failed to submit admissible evidence of the defendants’ default in making the mortgage payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage … . * * *

The plaintiff also failed to proffer evidence establishing its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. U.S. Bank N.A. v Moulton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00171, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s (PennyMac’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A]lthough Somarriba and Carras-Gomez “stated in [their] affidavit[s] that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened” … . Instead, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of bulk mailing, which did not identify any particular mailing, and two internal reports generated by the plaintiff, which appear to demonstrate that some unidentified pieces of mail were sent to the borrower’s address … . Additionally, no foundation was laid for the admission of these business records, as neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez attested that they had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, or that the plaintiff’s records were incorporated into PennyMac’s own records or routinely relied upon by PennyMac in its business … . Finally, the plaintiff failed, alternatively, to provide proof of actual mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice, to provide proof of “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . Neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez averred that they had personal knowledge of any such standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff. PennyMac Corp. v Khan, 2019 NY Slip Op 09278, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

/by
, ,

CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s (Huntress’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the tenant’s (Kingsbury’s) action for wrongful eviction (RPAPL 853) should not have been granted:

The sole contention raised by Huntress in support of his motion with respect to the first cross claim was that he could not be personally liable inasmuch as he was acting as an agent of a disclosed principal. We conclude that Huntress failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that cross claim and, as a result, the burden never shifted to Kingsbury to raise a triable issue of fact … .

“It is well established that [a] corporate officer may be held personally liable for a tort of the corporation if he or she committed or participated in its commission, whether or not his or her acts are also by or for the corporation’ ” … . A cause of action under RPAPL 853 sounds in tort … . Here, Huntress failed to establish that he did not participate in the eviction of Kingsbury, and he therefore failed to establish as a matter of law that he cannot be held personally liable if the eviction violated RPAPL 853 … . Canandaigua Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Acquest S. Park, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 09130, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

/by
, ,

MORTGAGE COMPANY’S PROOF OF STANDING AND MAILING OF RPAPL 1304 NOTICE INSUFFICIENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not provide sufficient evidence of standing and mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice in this foreclosure proceeding:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence this action. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of its Document Execution Specialist, Jerrell Menyweather, who attested that the plaintiff received physical delivery of the original note on July 6, 2007, and was in possession and the holder of the note, prior to commencement of the action … . While Menyweather attested that his knowledge was based on business records maintained by the plaintiff, he failed to annex the business records that he referred to in his affidavit. Thus, his affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value on this issue of the plaintiff’s standing … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Menyweather stated in the affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were sent to certain of the defendants via certified and first-class mail, the plaintiff failed to provide any documents to prove that the mailing actually took place. Moreover, “[w]hile mailing may be proved by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the rule against hearsay,” Menyweather “did not make the requisite showing that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jean-Baptiste, 2019 NY Slip Op 09011, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 DID NOT APPLY AND DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 did not apply and did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action. The bank did not show that the underlying loan was not a “home loan,” and the proof of mailing of the notice was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show, prima facie, that the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice requirement was inapplicable because the loan was not a “home loan” … .​

RPAPL 1304 requires the 90-day notice to be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower (see RPAPL 1304[2]). “By requiring the lender or mortgage loan servicer to send the RPAPL 1304 notice by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail, the Legislature implicitly provided the means for the plaintiff to demonstrate its compliance with the statute, i.e., by proof of the requisite mailing, which can be established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure'” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by an individual with personal knowledge of that procedure. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Sadique, 2019 NY Slip Op 09054, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

/by
, , ,

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE BANK COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304; THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED IN THE BANK’S FAVOR AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECONSIDERED, SUA SPONTE, WHEN THE BANK MOVED FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of the law of the case precluded the court from sua sponte, considering whether the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 were met by the bank in this foreclosure action. The issue was determined in the bank’s favor in the initial summary judgment proceeding and should not have been considered again when the bank moved to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure:

… [T]he defendants raised the issue of noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 in their answer, the plaintiff presented evidence of its compliance with the statute on its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint, and, in granting that motion, the Supreme Court decided the issue in the plaintiff’s favor. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case … , the court was precluded from reconsidering the issue on the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . Moreover, since the defendants did not oppose the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and, therefore, did not raise the issue of the plaintiff’s noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 in opposition to the motion, the court should not have raised the issue sua sponte … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Morales, 2019 NY Slip Op 08891, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

/by
,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 13O4 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was not demonstrated by the bank:

… [T]he affidavit of Theresia Ang, assistant vice president for the loan servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter PHH), which was submitted in support of the motion, was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendants in the manner required by RPAPL 1304 … . While Ang attested that “a ninety (90) day pre-foreclosure notice” was sent to the defendants “by registered or certified and first class mail,” and attached a copy of the notice along with a proof of filing statement from the New York State Banking Department, “the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened” … . The plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of service, or proof of mailing by the post office evincing that it served the defendants pursuant to RPAPL 1304 by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to their last known address … . Moreover, while Ang attested that she had personal knowledge of the records maintained in PHH’s electronic record keeping system, the plaintiff failed to submit proof of “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . KeyBank N.A. v Barrett, 2019 NY Slip Op 08835, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Although Menyweather [an assistant secretary employed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, the plaintiff’s loan servicer] stated in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by regular and certified mail, and attached copies of the notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents establishing that the notices were actually mailed … . The plaintiff failed to submit a copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute … . Further, although Menyweather attested that he had personal knowledge of the loan servicer’s records, and that those records included the records of the prior servicer, Bank of America, Menyweather did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of Bank of America, the entity that allegedly sent the 90-day notices to the defendant … . Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the a ctual mailing, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that the items were properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sawh, 2019 NY Slip Op 08556, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

/by
, , ,

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STAY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE STAY WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined an automatic bankruptcy stay tolls the statute of limitations where a party has a pending action at the time the stay was imposed:

New York law tolls the statute of limitations where “the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition” (CPLR 204 [a]). Federal bankruptcy law automatically stays the commencement or continuation of any judicial proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition (see 11 USC § 362 [a]). We must determine whether the bankruptcy stay qualifies as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204 (a), and, if so, whether a party may later avail itself of the toll where, at the time the stay was imposed, that party had a pending action asserting the same claim. … [W]e answer yes to both questions … . * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” The result here depends on our reading of the term “commencement.”

Plaintiff argues that it is impossible for defendant to have been prohibited from “commencing” an action because a foreclosure action had been commenced prior to plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing. Application of plaintiff’s rule would be as follows: Because defendant filed the first foreclosure claim and defendant responded by filing a bankruptcy petition, invoking the automatic stay, commencement of that first action was not “stayed” under the statute and the toll is inapplicable. And when defendant filed a second foreclosure action, and plaintiff again responded by again filing a bankruptcy petition that invoked the automatic stay, “commencement” of that second action was not stayed, once again making the toll inapplicable … . * * *

Neither this Court nor the Legislature has restricted the term “commencement” to the first time a party files a complaint asserting a cause of action; instead the term may also include the commencement of subsequent actions asserting the same claim … . Lubonty v U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.., 2019 NY Slip Op 08520, CtApp 11-25-19

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy