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

THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not include in its complaint in this foreclosure action the allegation it had complied with RPAPL 1306, which is a condition precedent to suit:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that, “with regard to a home loan, 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.” “RPAPL 1306 provides, in . . . part, that within three business days of the mailing of the foreclosure notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304(1), every lender or assignee ‘shall file’ certain information with the superintendent of financial services, including ‘at a minimum, the name, address, last known telephone number of the borrower, and the amount claimed as due and owing on the mortgage, and such other information as will enable the superintendent to ascertain the type of loan at issue'” … . RPAPL 1306(1) further provides that any complaint served in a foreclosure proceeding “shall contain, as a condition precedent to such proceeding, an affirmative allegation that at the time the proceeding is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section.”

Here … the complaint did not contain an allegation that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1306. Thus, a condition precedent to suit was not satisfied, and the plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment on the complaint … . USA Residential Props., LLC v Jongebloed, 2022 NY Slip Op 01835, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: If the bank does not allege in its foreclosure complaint compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1306, it has not satisfied a condition precedent to suit.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE PARTY TO BE ADDED AS A DEFENDANT HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE; AND THE CIVIL CONSPIRACY CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ADD IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN NEW YORK; THEREFORE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE PATENTLY DEVOID OF MERIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to add a defendant (Fu) and a cause of action for civil conspiracy should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not allege that Fu had any interest in the property in dispute. And New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as a tort:

It is well settled that leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given, provided the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit . . . , and the decision to permit an amendment is within the sound discretion of the court” … . Initially, plaintiff clarified in the amended complaint that the first cause of action, which is asserted against all defendants and seeks to set aside the deed and mortgage, was brought under RPAPL article 15. Pursuant to RPAPL article 15, an action may be maintained against any “person [who] . . . may have an . . . interest in the real property which may in any manner be affected by the judgment” (RPAPL 1511 [2]). Here, plaintiff failed to allege in the amended complaint any interest that Fu may have in the property and, thus, she is not a proper party to that cause of action … . Furthermore, New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort, such as fraud or conversion, as an independent cause of action … . Therefore, the proposed amendments with respect to Fu are patently devoid of merit. Landco H & L, Inc. v 377 Main Realty, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01695, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as a tort. This case is an example of what it means to find proposed amendments to a complaint “patently devoid of merit.”

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant does not own the note underlying the mortgage and therefore has no right to foreclose. The Fourth Department noted that an attorney’s failure to appear at a full briefed motion argument does not constitute a default:

… [D]efendant lacks noteholder standing because the promissory note upon which defendant relies is neither endorsed in blank nor specially endorsed to defendant … . … [E]ven had the note been endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to defendant, defendant’s admitted failure to physically possess the original note would independently preclude it from foreclosing as a noteholder … . …

Nor does defendant have assignee standing. The affidavits submitted on defendant’s behalf do not aver that the subject note was ever assigned to defendant … . …

… [A]n action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15 is a proper procedural vehicle for determining defendant’s standing to foreclose (see RPAPL 1501 [1], [5] … ). Hummel v Cilici, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01690, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: An attorney’s failure to appear at a fully briefed motion argument is not a default.

Practice Point: A party who never physically possessed the note underlying the mortgage does not have standing to foreclose.

 

, ,

WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE, THE DECEDENT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED OUTSIDE THE ESTATE TO THE DISTRIBUTEES AS TENANTS IN COMMON; THEREFORE, THE PARTITION ACTION BY ONE OF THE TENANTS IN COMMON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISED ON THE GROUND AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE HAD BEEN APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the partition action by a party holding 50% ownership of real property formerly owned by decedent should not have been dismissed based on the appointment of an administrator for decedent’s estate. Decedent died intestate. His interest in the real property passed to the distributees upon his death and is therefore not part of the estate:

… [T]he decedent died intestate, possessed of the subject property, and leaving six distributees who became owners of the subject property as tenants in common at the time of the decedent’s death. In its complaint, LCD Holdings alleged that it had acquired a 50% interest in the subject property from deeds given by and through certain of those distributees, with the defendants—the decedent’s remaining distributees—holding the other 50% interest. Consequently, the subject property is not part of the administrable estate … . Under such circumstances, LCD Holding, as the alleged holder of a 50% interest in the subject property as a tenant in common with the defendants, had the right to maintain this action for the partition and sale of the subject property in the Supreme Court, Kings County (see RPAPL 901[1] … ). Accordingly, the court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the action without prejudice to the commencement of a proceeding for the same relief in the in Surrogate’s Court … . LCD Holding Corp. v Powell-Allen, 2022 NY Slip Op 01447, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: When a real-property owner dies intestate, the decedent’s interest in the property immediately passes outside the estate to the distributees as tenants in common. Here the partition action by one of the tenants in common should not have been dismissed when an administrator of the estate was appointed because the real property was not part of the administrable estate.

 

, ,

THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK WAS INSUFFICIENT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action and Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion to amend the answer to assert lack of standing as a defense:

… [I]n support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted … a lost note affidavit of a representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, to which was annexed a copy of the consolidated note. However, the affidavit was insufficient to establish the facts preventing the production of the note … . …

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend her answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing … . Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025[b]). In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, a motion to amend should be granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .. “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine” … …. [T]he defendant did not waive the affirmative defense of lack of standing (see RPAPL 1302-a). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kreitzer. 2022 NY Slip Op 01441, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: The bank was unable to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action because the lost note affidavit was insufficient. Even a late motion to amend an answer should be granted if there is no prejudice to the plaintiff. Here the motion to add the lack of standing defense to the answer should have been granted.

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE FOR THE MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank violated the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 by including other documents in the envelope containing the notice of default in this foreclosure action:

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.” 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.”

Here, the inclusion of additional “Important Disclosures” regarding bankruptcy and rights for military personnel on page 7 of the 90-day notice violated RPAPL 1304(2), which requires strict compliance … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Salva, 2022 NY Slip Op 01290, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, ,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO SHOW THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action. The failure to attached the business records referred to in the affidavit purporting to demonstrate compliance rendered the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

Although the plaintiff submitted copies of the 90-day notices purportedly sent to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notices were actually mailed, through either an affidavit of service, other proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service, or evidence 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 … . The assertion in an affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer that the 90-day notices were sent in accordance with RPAPL 1304 was insufficient to establish that the notices were actually mailed to Blackman by first-class and certified mail. The affiant based his assertions upon his review of records which were created by a third-party vendor, and as those business records were not incorporated into the servicer’s own electronic files, they were inadmissible hearsay … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Blackman, 2022 NY Slip Op 01289, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304, including compliance with the “one envelope” rule:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Moreover, in support of their cross motion, the defendants … demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff included additional material in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice, in violation of the separate mailing requirement of RPAPL 1304(2) … . US Bank N.A. v Kaplan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , ,

THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT’S DETERMINATION THE BANK HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the failure to identify and attach the documents demonstrating the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action rendered the bank’s affidavit inadmissible hearsay. The court noted that Supreme Court’s determination the bank had complied with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304 was the law of the case precluding reconsideration of the issue pursuant to defendants’ cross motion:

The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Richard L. Penno, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Based upon his review of Wells Fargo’s books and records concerning the defendants’ loan, Penno attested to the defendants’ default in payment. However, Penno did not identify the records he relied upon in order to attest to the defendants’ default and did not attach them to his affidavit … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . Thus, Penno’s assertions as to the contents of Wells Fargo’s servicing records were inadmissible … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge … . …

… [C]ontrary to the defendants’ … contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement. The plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement were both considered and decided in the plaintiff’s favor on its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, while it is true that a defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time … , the doctrine of law of the case precluded the court from reconsidering those issues on the defendants’ cross motion … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ramanababu, 2022 NY Slip Op 01199, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action was deficient, and the failure to submit the business records referred to in the bank’s affidavit rendered the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Becky J. Layman, an officer of the plaintiff. Layman’s assertions that the plaintiff complied with the notice of default provision of the mortgage and that the plaintiff complied with the notice provision of RPAPL 1304 were insufficient, since she failed to provide proof of the actual mailings or attest to knowledge of the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures … . Layman’s affidavit was also insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant defaulted under the note and mortgage, since her purported knowledge was based upon review of unidentified business records which were not attached to her affidavit … . Thus, her assertions regarding the defendant’s default, without the business records upon which she relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 01198, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

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