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

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was sufficient, but the bank’s proof of standing to bring the foreclosure action was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a person employed by the plaintiff as a business operations analyst, who described the procedure by which mailings were documented in a correspondence log, and laid a foundation for consideration of business records he submitted. Annexed to the affidavit was a copy of excerpts of the correspondence log, which indicated that notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304 were sent to the defendant by certified and first-class mail. The plaintiff also submitted, inter alia, a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS certified mail barcode, and a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS first-class mail barcode, along with copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices sent to the defendant. …

… [T]he plaintiff submitted a copy of the note, along with a paper, which was labeled an allonge, containing an endorsement in blank. However, the plaintiff did not submit evidence to indicate that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof, as required under UCC 3-202(2) … . Moreover, at the time the action was commenced, the plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff did not append a copy of the purported allonge … . The affidavits submitted by the plaintiff do not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action … .  Citimortgage, Inc. v Ustick, 2020 NY Slip Op 06489, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it met the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and the bank did not demonstrate it had standing the bring the action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of first-class mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Sherry Benight, who was employed as a document control officer for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), which began servicing the subject loan on the plaintiff’s behalf on July 15, 2015, as well as copies of the purported notices, dated July 22, 2013. Although one of the notices contained a first-class mail 10-digit barcode, the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the letter was actually sent by first-class mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. In her affidavit, Benight stated that she could confirm that the notice was sent to the defendant on July 22, 2013. However, Benight did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing. Further, since she did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bank of America, N.A., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . To the extent that Benight relied upon a screenshot of a TrackRight Transaction Report, she failed to establish how or when the report was created, that it was made in the regular course of business, or that it was created soon after the notices were purportedly mailed to the defendant … . …

The plaintiff also attempted to establish standing through the submission of Benight’s affidavit, but this also was insufficient. Benight asserted that the original note was delivered to the plaintiff on September 7, 2004, and that the plaintiff had since remained in possession of the note. Benight, however, did not have personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s receipt of the note, did not attest that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, and also did not submit any admissible business records to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time this action was commenced … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Porfert, 2020 NY Slip Op 06083, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of Ray Thacker, a vice president of the plaintiff, based upon his review of his employer’s records, which were attached thereto. However, Thacker’s affidavit contained no statement as to Thacker’s personal familiarity with the mailing practices of his employer … .

Moreover, although Thacker’s affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the business records which were attached thereto (see CPLR 4518[a] …), the content of those records did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed. The copies of letters addressed to the defendant, bearing 20-digit bar codes, were insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the certified mailing or first class mailing actually occurred … . The “Proof of Filing Statement” from the New York State Banking Department, pursuant to RPAPL 1306, reflecting a tracking number, a “Mailing Date Step 1” of May 16, 2012, and a “Filing Date Step 1” of May 17, 2012, also was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, the plaintiff’s compliance with all of the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v Gershfeld, 2020 NY Slip Op 05895, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and that the required notice of default was in fact mailed to the defendants by first-class mail, or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage as a condition precedent to foreclosure … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Buah, 2020 NY Slip Op 05722, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff (CV) did not provide the proof required by Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The version of RPAPL 1304(2) as it existed at the time this action was commenced, provided that, “[t]he notices required by this section shall contain a current list of at least five housing counseling agencies that serve the region where the borrower resides from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services” …

… CV failed to submit evidence to demonstrate that the 90-day notices contained either five housing agencies that served the region where the defendants resided or were from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services. …

Additionally, CV did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that the defendants were properly served pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, CV relied upon the affidavit of Matthew W. Regan, its executive vice president, who averred that 90-day notices were sent in accordance with the statute. In his affidavit, Regan referenced copies of 90-day notices, which, however, did not bear any postmark. Moreover, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices . . . standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . Also, Regan’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the required notices were sent in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as Regan did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notices, and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . CV XXVIII, LLC v Trippiedi, 2020 NY Slip Op 05721, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

/by
, ,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANKS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action and compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. Although the employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer stated in her affidavit, which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note, she never stated that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced … . Further, the plaintiff failed to establish that the note was attached to the complaint at the time of the commencement of the action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 because the employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, in her affidavit, failed to assert personal knowledge of the purported mailing or make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures in order to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Palacio, 2020 NY Slip Op 05480, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

/by
, , ,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-105, NOT 17-101, APPLIES TO THE REVIVAL OF AN EXPIRED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE; THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HERE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 17-105; FORECLOSURE WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, determined that General Obligations Law 17-105, not 17-101, applied to the revival of an expired statute of limitations for foreclosure of a mortgage and the documents in this case did not meet the criteria of section 17-105. Therefore the foreclosure action was time-barred. The court noted that Supreme Court should have issued a judgment declaring the rights of the parties pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law 1501 and 1521:

General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) provides, in relevant part:

“A waiver of the expiration of the time limited for commencement of an action to foreclose a mortgage of real property or a mortgage of a lease of real property, or a waiver of the time that has expired, or a promise not to plead the expiration of the time limited, or not to plead the time that has expired, or a promise to pay the mortgage debt, if made after the accrual of a right of action to foreclose the mortgage and made, either with or without consideration, by the express terms of a writing signed by the party to be charged is effective, subject to any conditions expressed in the writing, to make the time limited for commencement of the action run from the date of the waiver or promise.”

* * *

… [T]the financial statements submitted by defendant do not meet the requirements of subdivision (1) of section 17-105 because those documents merely list the mortgage as a liability and do not constitute an express promise to pay the mortgage debt … . Batavia Townhouses, Ltd. v Council of Churches Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05331, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

/by
, ,

CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (4) MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM, NOT BY A MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501 (4) should not have been granted. That relief must be sought by an action or counterclaim:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the motion which was to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4), since that relief must be sought in an action or counterclaim and not by motion … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v 11 Bayberry St., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05175,  Second Dept 9-30-20

/by
, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND 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 plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate the notice of default was provided in accordance with the mortgage agreement, failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and failed to demonstrate such compliance was not required:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with a condition precedent contained in the consolidated mortgage agreement, requiring the lender to send a notice of default prior to the commencement of the action. In this respect, the unsubstantiated and conclusory statements in the affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff’s servicer, which indicated that the required notice of default was sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage, combined with a copy of the notice of default, failed to show that the required notice was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the consolidated mortgage agreement … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it properly served upon the defendant the notice required by RPAPL 1304. The mailing required under that statute “‘is 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 proffered neither evidence of the actual mailings nor evidence of a standard office mailing procedure, but rather relied upon its servicer’s conclusory and unsubstantiated affidavit averring that the notice was sent, along with a copy of the notice. This evidence failed to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden … . Moreover, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, affidavits of service pertaining to the summons and complaint as well as the defendant’s verified answer, which demonstrated that the defendant was present in the State of Florida at the time of service of those pleadings, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the subject property was not the defendant’s “principal dwelling,” so as to establish that compliance with RPAPL 1304 was not required … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Negrin, 2020 NY Slip Op 05253, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

/by
, , , ,

LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH STANDING; PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT; OUT OF STATE AFFIDAVIT LACKED A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY; NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The lost note affidavit was insufficient to establish standing the proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient and the out of state affidavit lacked a certificate of conformity. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, however, was properly denied:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to proffer evidence establishing that the note was assigned to it, and the affidavit of lost note submitted in support of its motion failed to establish the facts that prevented the plaintiff from producing the original note (see UCC 3-804 …). We also note that the out-of-state affidavit from the vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo lacked a certificate of conformity as required by CPLR 2309(c), although such defect by itself would not be fatal to the plaintiff’s motion ,,, ,

… [A]lthough the plaintiff submitted a copy of the 90-day notice purportedly sent to the defendants, it failed to submit an affidavit of service or other proof of mailing establishing that it properly served them by registered or certified mail and first-class mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304 … . …

The defendants’ bare denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1304 notice, without more, was insufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Trust v Moneta, 2020 NY Slip Op 05181, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

/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