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

A TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS AN IN REM ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY DESPITE THE DEATH OF THE OWNER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tax foreclosure proceeding was not a nullity and did not violate due process. The foreclosed restaurant belonged to plaintiff’s husband, who died in 2006. The treasurer of Ontario County followed all the proper procedures for notification of the tax foreclosure proceedings. Tax foreclosure is an in rem action to which there are no parties. So the argument that the action could not be brought against the deceased owner of the restaurant was rejected:

… [B]y statute, mortgagors are necessary party defendants to mortgage foreclosure actions (see RPAPL 1311 [1]). In contrast, a petition in a tax foreclosure proceeding relates only to the property and not any particular person (see RPTL 1123 [2] [a]). The distinction between in rem tax foreclosure proceedings and mortgage foreclosure actions with respect to the “parties” is critical. While an action or proceeding cannot be commenced against a dead person who, by necessity, is a named party to the action … , a tax foreclosure proceeding is not commenced against any person; it is commenced against the property itself. The owners are not necessary “parties” to the tax foreclosure proceeding; they are only “[p]arties entitled to notice” of the proceeding (RPTL 1125 [1] [a]; see RPTL 1123 [1], [2] [a]; cf. RPAPL 1131). As a result, the tax foreclosure proceeding was properly commenced even though decedent had died … , and there was no need to substitute someone for the dead owner (see CPLR 1015). Hetelekides v County of Ontario, 2021 NY Slip Op 02697, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

, , ,

NON-OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO VACATE AN ERIE COUNTY TAX FORECLOSURE SALE; THE RIGHT TO PAY THE DELINQUENT TAXES HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the tax foreclosure sale of property owned by Black Rock to appellant should not have been vacated.  Respondent, Fedder, moved to vacate the sale. After County Court granted Fedder’s motion, the delinquent taxes were paid, the County issued a certificate of redemption to Black Rock, which then sold the property to Fedder:

… [T]his is not a mortgage foreclosure action, where the “equity of redemption” permits property owners “to redeem their property by tendering the full sum” owed before a valid sale is effectuated … . Here, instead, the right to pay the delinquent taxes by virtue of the equity of redemption was extinguished several months prior to Fedder’s motion by order to show cause, according to the ECTA [Erie County Tax Act], the public notice of foreclosure, and the terms of the judgment of foreclosure (see ECTA §§ 11-10.0, 11-12.0; see also RPTL art 11 … ). … [T]he purported redemption, the issuance of the certificate of redemption, and the purported sale and transfer of title from Black Rock to Fedder are nullities … . …

Fedder did not have standing to seek equitable relief in this case. Pursuant to ECTA § 7-10.0, the court could not set aside the sale to appellant “except upon a proceeding brought therefor by the owner of such real property within three months from the date of such sale.” Here, no such proceeding was brought. Instead, Fedder, a nonowner, filed a motion by order to show cause in this foreclosure action, and Black Rock, the owner, was not a party to the motion. In light of the ” ‘clear legislative intent’ ” of section 7-10.0 …, Fedder did not have standing to seek rescission of the sale.  Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens, 2021 NY Slip Op 02681, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT HE OWNED THE LAND WHERE TREES WERE HARVESTED; THEREFORE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE TREBLE DAMAGES ASPECT OF RPAPL 861 APPLIES MUST BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had a good faith belief that the land on which trees were harvested was his own property. Therefore whether plaintiff was entitled to treble damages pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 861 must be determined at trial:

“[T]he current version of RPAPL 861 was enacted . . . in an effort to deter the illegal taking of timber by increasing the potential damages for that activity” … . If a person violates RPAPL 861 by cutting another person’s trees without the other’s consent, or by causing such cutting to occur, “an action may be maintained against such person for treble the stumpage value of the tree or timber or [$250] per tree, or both and for any permanent and substantial damage caused to the land or the improvements thereon as a result of such violation” … . However, if a defendant in such an action “establishes[,] by clear and convincing evidence, that when the defendant committed the violation, he or she had cause to believe the land was his or her own, . . . then he or she shall be liable for the stumpage value or [$250] per tree, or both” … . Thus, “a trespasser’s good faith belief in a legal right to harvest timber does not insulate that person from the imposition of statutory damages, but merely saves him or her from having to pay the plaintiff treble damages” … . “Whether treble damages pursuant to RPAPL 861 are warranted is generally a factual determination” … . Although Gregory Miller testified that he intended to remove trees only from his own property, the record reflects that he did not have a survey of the property and relied on a determination of the boundary lines based on his own measurements. We conclude that a factual question exists, as Gregory Miller has failed at this stage of the proceedings to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had a good faith belief that he owned the land at issue … . Holser v Geerholt, 2021 NY Slip Op 02578, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

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

 

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