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

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION TO QUIET TITLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE PURSUANT TO RPAPL ARTICLE 15 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint seeking to quiet title should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion. The complaint stated a cause of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15:

… [T]he court should not have converted defendant’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3211(c), since plaintiffs did not agree to “charting a summary judgment course,” and the case did not involve a “purely legal question without any disputed issues of fact” … . Conversion of the motion prejudiced plaintiffs, who had no opportunity to respond to the contentions raised by defendant for the first time in reply … . …

“To maintain a cause of action to quiet title [to real property], a plaintiff must allege actual or constructive possession of the property and the existence of a removable cloud on the property, which is an apparent title to the property, such as in a deed or other instrument, that is actually invalid or inoperative” (…see RPAPL 1515; RPAPL 1501[1]). Here, the complaint adequately alleges facts that, if established, could support a finding that plaintiffs attained equitable title arising from the contract of sale they allegedly entered into with codefendant … for 25% of the property, as well as their payment of the agreed price and exclusive and actual occupancy of an apartment in the property … . Davis v Augoustopoulos, 2021 NY Slip Op 05772, First Dept 10-21-21

 

, ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS THE RESULT OF “WILFUL NEGLECT;” THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1523, DEFENDANT’S “WILFUL-NEGLECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defense to the reforeclosure should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff had not named defendant in its original foreclosure action, apparently because a quitclaim deed adding defendant to the title was not discovered in the title search. Defendant demonstrated there had been a prior foreclosure action in which defendant had been named as a party. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the failure to name defendant in the original foreclosure action was the result of “wilful neglect:”

To prevail in a reforeclosure action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect in the original foreclosure action “was not due to fraud or wilful neglect of the plaintiff and that the defendant or the person under whom he claims was not actually prejudiced thereby” (RPAPL 1523[2] [emphasis added]).

Pursuant to the language of RPAPL 1523 … the plaintiff had the burden of demonstrating … both that the defect in the underlying foreclosure action was not the result of fraud or the wilful neglect of the foreclosure plaintiff, and that the defect did not prejudice the defendant (see RPAPL 1523[1], [2]). * * *

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the evidence of the prior foreclosure action in which the defendant was named as a party raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s failure to name her as a defendant in the underlying foreclosure action was the result of “wilful neglect” (RPAPL 1523[2] …). U.S. Bank N.A. v Lomuto, 2021 NY Slip Op 05363, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

,

SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, over a strong dissent, determined RPAPL 1304 requires that the 90-day notice of foreclosure proceedings be sent to each borrower in separate envelopes. Here a single envelope with the RPAPL 1304 notice addressed to both borrowers did not comply with the statute and the foreclosure action was properly dismissed by Supreme Court:

… [W]hile 30-day notices of default were separately mailed to each of the defendants, the 90-day notice, which was sent via certified and first-class mail, was jointly addressed to the defendants. While the record reflects that “F. Yapkowitz” signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice sent via certified mail, receipt of the notice is inconsequential. Even assuming, arguendo, that both of the defendants had signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice, the plaintiff would not have demonstrated strict compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 by mailing a notice jointly addressed to both of the borrowers in the same envelope. Since it is undisputed that the 90-day notice to each of the borrowers was sent in the same envelope, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304, a condition precedent to the commencement of the action. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 2021 NY Slip Op 05139, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

, , ,

PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant failed to demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements in this foreclosure action. The proof of mailing to the correct address was first provided in reply papers for the motion to confirm the referee’s report and was not part of plaintiff’s initial summary judgment motion. And the proof of mailing was not supported by proof of the affiant’s knowledge of the mailing practices and procedures of the party which actually mailed the documents:

Although Cantu [plaintiff’s default servicing officer] stated in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and first-class mail to the defendants at the property, and he attached copies of 90-day notices with corresponding certified and first-class envelopes, Cantu did not attach the 90-day notices and envelopes addressed to the property where the defendants resided or any United States Post Office documentation showing that the purported mailings to the property actually occurred … . To the extent the plaintiff relies on copies of the 90-day notices with corresponding certified and first-class envelopes addressed to the property which were submitted for the first time in its reply papers on its subsequent motion … to confirm the referee’s report, those documents were insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden on its initial motion … for summary judgment … . “A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance” … . Further, while Cantu asserted that he had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s procedures for creating and maintaining its business records, he did not attest that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Walz, the third-party entity that he acknowledged sent the notices … . Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish proof of standard office practices and procedures designed to ensure the notices were properly addressed and mailed … . Caliber Home Loans, Inc. v Weinstein, 2021 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE FORECLOSED PROPERTY IN THIS ACTION SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1371 (2) WERE DEFECIENT; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED A HEARING TO ESTABLISH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department in this foreclosure proceeding seeking a deficiency judgment determined Supreme Court properly ordered a hearing to establish the fair market value of the property. The submitted affidavits were not sufficient:

“RPAPL 1371(2) permits the mortgagee in a mortgage foreclosure action to recover a deficiency judgment for the difference between the amount of indebtedness on the mortgage and either the auction price at the foreclosure sale or the fair market value of the property, whichever is higher” …  When a lender moves to secure a deficiency judgment against a borrower, “the court . . . 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” … . “It is the lender who bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, the property’s fair market value as of the date of the auction sale”… . “RPAPL 1371 does not require the court to hold an evidentiary hearing; however, where ‘a triable issue as to the reasonable market value is presented, that issue should not be decided upon affidavits, but by the court or a referee, so that the witnesses may be subject to observation and cross-examination'” … . …

The appraisal … was not certified, nor was it accompanied by an affidavit of the appraiser. Moreover, the appraisal stated that the value indicated by the income approach was in the amount of $450,000, while the value indicated by the sales comparison approach was in the amount of $480,000. There was no explanation as to why the Supreme Court should accept the value based on the income approach as opposed to the sales comparison approach. U.S. Bank, N.A. v 199-02 Linden Blvd. Realty, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04991, Second Dept 8-15-21

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the loan in question in this foreclosure proceeding was a “home loan” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 and therefore the notice requirements of RPAPL 13O4 applied. The bank argued the loan was not a “home loan” because the defendant no longer lived on the property. The Second Department held that, because the defendant had moved, the 90-day-notice required by RPAPL 1304 did not apply, but the bank was still obligated to notify the defendants of the foreclosure action. Because the bank did not submit sufficient proof of compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304, the bank’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

… [W]hile finding, pursuant to RPAPL 1304(3), that “[g]iven that Defendant no longer occupies the residence as his principal dwelling place, the ninety-day period specified in the notice is inapplicable,” the Supreme Court properly concluded that “Defendant’s loan qualified as a ‘home loan’ under RPAPL § 1304(5) due to the fact that the home was Defendant’s primary residence from the time of the loan until he was transferred to California in 2011,” and that, “[t]herefore, Plaintiff needed to serve statutory notice pursuant to RPAPL § 1304 on Defendant by first class mail and certified mail.” …

To establish its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of its employee, Takesha Brown, a document execution specialist. Although Brown stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, she did not attest to having personal knowledge of the mailing, and the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the notices were actually mailed to the defendant … . In addition, the plaintiff failed 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” … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jong Sim, 2021 NY Slip Op 04979, Second Dept 9-15-21

 

, , ,

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMPLICATED FORECLOSURE DECISION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED (1) WHEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND (2) THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, addressed (1) when evidence presented in reply can be considered and (2) how to meet the criteria of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Supreme Court … should have considered the Lee affidavit … . … [T]he defendant did not object to the plaintiff’s submission of the Lee affidavit, despite its being submitted for the first time in reply, and does not raise any objection to its admission on appeal. In any event, “[a]lthough a party moving for summary judgement cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … , the Lee affidavit was an exception to that rule, as it was submitted in response to a specific argument raised for the first time in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion and in support of the defendant’s cross motion … , and the defendant could have responded to the Lee affidavit in his reply papers in further support of his cross motion … . * * *

… [W]hile the Lee affidavit was sufficient to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) … , Lee failed to identify the records upon which she relied in making the statements, and the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the records themselves. “[T]he business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a ‘writing or record’ … . . . [and] it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “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, Lee’s assertions as to the contents of the plaintiff’s records were “inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purport[ed] to describe were not submitted with her affidavit” … . Moreover, while “a witness may always testify as to matters which are within his or her personal knowledge through personal observation” … , Lee did not attest to such personal knowledge regarding the physical whereabouts of the consolidated note during the relevant time … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Pickering-Robinson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04775, Second Dept 8-25-21​

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage in this foreclosure action was insufficient:

RPAPL 1304 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[1]). “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304 requires that the notice be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower … . The plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually occurred … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice by first-class mail actually occurred. Graves [document management specialist] did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, did not describe a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, and did not attach proof of first-class mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the mailing of the notice of default in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement actually occurred … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Donovan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04748, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, ,

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence of defendant’s default or the bank’s compliance the the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

… [Plaintiff’s representative] did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff or those of the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, or that the records generated by the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest were incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business (see CPLR 4518[a] … ), and failed to attach any business records of the plaintiff or its predecessor in interest to his affidavit ,,, . Moreover, to the extent that the …. employee’s purported knowledge of [defendant’s] default was based upon his review of unidentified business records … , his affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . …

The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served [defendant]  pursuant to the terms of RPAPL 1304 … . The … employee’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to [defendant] in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the employee did not provide evidence of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedure and provided no evidence of the actual mailing … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeLoney, 2021 NY Slip Op 04655, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

,

THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE BANK; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the criteria for the notice required by RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action were not met. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

RPAPL 1304(1), which applies to residential foreclosure actions, provides, among other things, that, “at least [90] 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.” The version of RPAPL 1304 which existed at the time this action was commenced provided that notices required to be sent pursuant to this section “shall contain a list of at least five housing counseling agencies . . . that serve the region where the borrower resides,” with their “last known addresses and telephone numbers” (RPAPL former 1304[2]).

Here, the RPAPL notices submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment failed to demonstrate that the notices contained five housing agencies that served the region where the defendant resided. As a result, the plaintiff did not meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . US Bank N.A. v Gurung, 2021 NY Slip Op 04387, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

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