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

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO RESPONDENT’S NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 SHOIULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER LESS INTRUSIVE METHODS FOR ROOF PROTECTION OF RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY COULD BE USED TO FACILITATE FACADE WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined all the relevant factors had not been considered when granting petitioner’s application for access to respondent’s neighboring property to install roof and terrace protection related to work on the facade of petitioner’s building. The matter was remitted for a determination whether less intrusive methods of roof protection could be used:

Supreme Court improvidently granted petitioner’s application for access to respondent’s neighboring property in order to effectuate repairs to petitioner’s property pursuant to RPAPL 881. “Although the determination of whether to award a license fee is discretionary, in that RPAPL 881 provides that a ‘license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires,’ the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees” … . This is because “‘the respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it. . .Equity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access'” … . Furthermore, “[c]ourts are required to balance the interests of the parties and should issue a license when necessary, under reasonable conditions, and where the inconvenience to the adjacent property owner is relatively slight compared to the hardship of his neighbor if the license is refused” … .

In granting access, Supreme Court permitted petitioner to designate a controlled access zone and to place roof protection on respondent’s terraces. The roof protection petitioner seeks to install is placed directly on top of the floors of respondent’s terraces and according to respondent would completely prohibit the tenants of the terraced apartments from using any portion of their terraces. Prior to the granting petitioner’s application, Supreme Court must consider and resolve the issue as to whether there are less intrusive and equally effective methods of roof protection … . Matter of 400 E57 Fee Owner LLC v 405 E. 56th St. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02587, First Dept 4-29-21

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; 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 bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he affidavit of Lori Spisak, an “authorized signer” of the plaintiff, submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion, was insufficient to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notice was properly mailed, because Spisak did not have personal knowledge of the mailing, and her affidavit did not contain proof of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedure at the time the RPAPL 1304 notice allegedly was sent. The plaintiff also did not provide any independent proof of actual mailing. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notice it allegedly sent was in at least fourteen-point type. Capital One, N.A. v Liman, 2021 NY Slip Op 02270, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

,

THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was precluded by a prior action which had not been discontinued:

In May 2014, JPMorgan commenced an action to foreclose the consolidated mortgage (hereinafter the prior action). In August 2014, JPMorgan assigned the consolidated mortgage to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter the plaintiff). In August 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose the subject mortgage. …

RPAPL 1301(3) provides that “[w]hile [an] action is pending . . . , no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” “The object of the statute is to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt” … . Here, since the plaintiff commenced the instant action without leave of the court in which the prior action was brought, and there is no basis in the record to determine that JPMorgan discontinued or effectively abandoned the prior action, dismissal is warranted under RPAPL 1301(3) … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Starr-Klein, 2021 NY Slip Op 02269, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Mahilet Ayalew, a vice president of loan documentation of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the plaintiff’s servicer. Ayalew stated in the affidavit that 90-day notices were sent to the defendant on February 1, 2013, by regular and certified mail “in full compliance” with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff additionally submitted copies of 90-day notices and indicia of mailing by certified mail, but not first-class mail. Ayalew’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notices were actually mailed since Ayalew did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing or that she was familiar with the servicer’s standard office mailing practices and procedures … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Cardona, 2021 NY Slip Op 02138, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK, AT TRIAL, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the plaintiff’s verdict in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate (at trial) that it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“‘In reviewing a determination . . . after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses'” … . At the nonjury trial, the plaintiff relied upon the testimony of its sole witness, who testified as to the standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff’s prior and present loan servicer, but did not and could not attest to the practices and procedures of Walz Group, a third-party entity that was hired to undertake the requisite service of the notices on the defendants in accordance with the requirements of the mortgage agreement and RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff’s witness expressly testified that she did not have familiarity with Walz Group’s mailing practices “outside of their communications with” the loan servicer. In addition, the witness attested that she never mailed anything through Walz Group, was never employed by Walz Group, and was never trained by Walz Group in their procedures for mailing notices. Further, she testified that she could not say if Walz Group mailed the notices by first-class mail.

Thus, since the plaintiff’s sole witness did not have “knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notice[s]” … , and the business records that were submitted in evidence failed to show that the requisite first-class mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices or the notices of default were actually made to the defendants or that the default notices were actually delivered to their “notice address,” the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bucicchia, 2021 NY Slip Op 02132, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

,

THE 2ND DEPARTMENT REVERSED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK BECAUSE ONE OF TWO BORROWERS WAS NOT NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING; THIS RULING MAY NOT HOLD UP BECAUSE, ON MARCH 30, 2021, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD ONLY ONE BORROWER NEED BE NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING (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 because an apparent borrower, Kosin, was not named in the bank’s electronic filing required by RPAPL 1306. [Note that the Court of Appeals, on March 30, 2021, held that the bank need only name one borrower in the RPAPL 1306 notice. That holding may or may not apply to this case, which has slightly different facts in that it was not certain Kosin was, in fact, a borrower. See CIT Bank N.A. v Schiffman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01933, CtApp 3-30-21.]:

… [T]he plaintiff’s noncompliance with RPAPL 1306 by establishing that the plaintiff only made an RPAPL 1306 filing with respect to [defendant borrower] Hollien, but did not make any such filing with respect to Kosin. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to its compliance with this necessary precondition to commencement of a foreclosure action … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it was still required to comply with RPAPL 1304 and 1306 with respect to Kosin because, although Kosin was not listed as a “borrower” on the note, he was defined as a “borrower” on the mortgage agreement. Since the mortgage agreement refers to Kosin as a “borrower” on both the first page and the signature page, Kosin is a “borrower” for purposes of RPAPL 1304 and 1306 … . Although there is some ambiguity in the language of the mortgage agreement, any ambiguities in the language of the document must be construed against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is the party who supplied the document … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hollien, 2021 NY Slip Op 01963, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not present sufficient evidence of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

[T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of April Simmons, an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), along with copies of two 90-day notices addressed to the defendant. Simmons, however, did not state in her affidavit that she personally mailed these notices to the defendant, and she did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity which sent the notices … . Moreover, although the envelopes accompanying the 90-day notices state “First-Class Mail” and contain a bar code above a 20-digit number, the plaintiff failed to submit any receipt or corresponding document proving that the notices were actually sent by first-class and certified mail to the defendant more than 90 days prior to the commencement of the action … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Zientek, 2021 NY Slip Op 02015, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance RPAPL 1304 and therefore was not entitled to summary judgment:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affidavit of Tewana Sheriff, a foreclosure administrator for the plaintiff’s servicer who, based upon review of “business records maintained for the purpose of servicing plaintiff’s mortgage loans,” averred that the 90-day notice was sent via first-class and certified mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304. Sheriff did not refer to any specific records demonstrating compliance with RPAPL 1304, did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the subject mailings, and did not set forth personal knowledge of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed. Although the plaintiff submitted a signed certified mail receipt and United States Postal Service tracking information, those items do not refer to a 90-day notice, and a copy of the 90-day notice does not include a United States Postal Service tracking number corresponding with the certified mail receipt … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to, inter alia, submit any proof of mailing the 90-day notice by first-class mail. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants, to strike their answer, and for an order of reference … . Santander Bank, N.A. v Schaefer, 2021 NY Slip Op 02005, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, ,

WHERE THE BANK ATTEMPTS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WITH PROOF OF THE STANDARD OFFICE MAILING PROCEDURE, A DEFENDANT BORROWER MAY REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER MAILING AND RECEIPT WITH PROOF OF A MATERIAL DEVIATION FROM THE BANK’S MAILING PROCEDURE; WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE BORROWERS, THE BANK NEED ONLY NAME ONE IN THE ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1306 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion, answering two certified questions from the Second Circuit, determined: (1) where, in an action for foreclosure, the bank attempts to demonstrate compliance with the mailing and notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 with proof of the standard office mailing procedure, a defendant borrower can rebut the presumption of proper mailing and receipt with proof of a material deviation from the bank’s mailing procedure; and (2) where there are multiple borrowers, the bank need only provide information about one borrower in the bank’s electronic filing required by RPAL 1306. Here the defendants alleged there was a material deviation from the bank’s mailing procedure because the bank averred the envelopes for the RPAPL 1304 notice are “created upon default,” but the notices were dated almost a year after the initial payment default. The Court of Appeals expressed no opinion whether the “nearly one-year gap” was a material deviation from the bank’s mailing procedure such that the presumption of proper mailing and receipt was rebutted. The court noted the borrowers’ claim they never received the notice is not, standing alone, sufficient to rebut the presumption:

What is necessary to rebut the presumption that a RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed will depend, in part, on the nature of the practices detailed in the affidavit. Moreover, contextual considerations may also factor into the analysis. For example, here, [the bank] points out that residential notes and mortgages are negotiable instruments that often change hands at various points during their duration, which may impact the timing of the creation and mailing of RPAPL 1304 notices—a contextual factor a court could consider in assessing whether a purported deviation from routine procedure was material. We reject defendants’ argument that a single deviation from any aspect of the routine office procedure necessarily rebuts the presumption of mailing. Such a standard would undermine the purpose of the presumption because, in practice, it would require entities to retain actual proof of mailing for every document that could be potentially relevant in a future lawsuit. CIT Bank N.A. v Schiffman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01933, CtApp 3-30-21

 

, , , ,

THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure file an affidavit of service after serving the warrant and notice of eviction did not affect the validity of the service of the warrant of eviction which triggers the 14-day waiting period before execution of the warrant. The court noted that the matter was moot because the petitioner was subsequently evicted based on a different warrant, but the matter should be heard on appeal because the circumstance is likely to recur. The two dissenters argued the mootness of the matter precluded appeal:

… [T]he issuance of a warrant is the court’s last act in a summary proceeding, as denoted by the phrase, “Upon rendering a final judgment for [the owner], the court shall issue a warrant” (RPAPL 749 [1]). The execution of the warrant terminates the lease … . Likewise, the execution of the warrant terminates the summary proceeding and the jurisdiction of the court …  Because the court no longer has jurisdiction, the filing of the affidavit of service is superfluous. This stands in stark contrast to the purpose of the affidavit of service at the commencement of the summary proceeding, where it suffices as proof that the party was properly served pursuant to law, as proper service is required to bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court … .

… [W]e find that filing the affidavit of service at the conclusion of service of a warrant of eviction is not required, and the 14-day notice begins the day following the date of service, posting or mailing, whichever is later … . Matter of Dixon v County of Albany, 2021 NY Slip Op 01819, Third Dept 3-25-21

 

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