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

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The judgment after trial was reversed:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the testimony of DeCaro [loan verification officer], who, when shown a copy of the 90-day notice, testified that the notice was printed on October 13, 2011, the same date that appears on the notice, that it was sent to the defendants at the subject property, and that such notice was maintained by Wells Fargo in the regular course of business as the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, DeCaro’s testimony was insufficient to demonstrate that it complied with RPAPL 1304. DeCaro did not testify that she had personal knowledge of the purported mailing or of Wells Fargo’s mailing practices, and did not describe the procedure by which the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed to the defendants by both certified mail and first-class mail … . Although the notice itself stated in bold print, “FIRST CLASS MAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL,” no receipt or corresponding document issued by the United States Postal Service was submitted proving that the notice was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. Moreover, the mailing manifest submitted by the plaintiff failed to establish that the notice was actually mailed to the defendants by both certified mail and first-class mail … .

Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, “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,” the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . US Bank N.A. v Pierre, 2020 NY Slip Op 07622, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE COMPLIED WITH; SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were not demonstrated and, therefore, the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing by either certified mail or first-class mail, “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” … , it failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy its prima facie burden with respect to RPAPL 1304, those branches of its 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 should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . US Bank N.A. v McQueen, 2020 NY Slip Op 07423, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

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

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

“In a residential foreclosure action, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of material issues as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304” … . 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.” “The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower” … . Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . Proof of the requisite mailings “can be 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” … . …

… [W]ith respect to the mailing by first-class mail, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . As to Babik’s [the loan servicer’s employee’s] affidavit, not only did Babik “not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing [or] set forth any details regarding … [the loan servicer’s] mailing practices or procedures” … , she did not aver that a 90-day notice was sent in accordance with the statute … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Hershkowitz, 2020 NY Slip Op 07427, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the notice of default requirements of the mortgage, and standing to bring the action. Evidence submitted in reply papers should not have been considered:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of DiMario Abrams, a vice president for the plaintiff’s loan servicer, as well as copies of the notices and the envelopes in which the notices were allegedly mailed. Abrams did not purport to have personal knowledge of the actual mailing of the notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304, he did not purport to have personal knowledge of the mailing procedures utilized by the plaintiff’s loan servicer, and he did not lay a proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule with respect to the notices and envelopes attached to his affidavit … . * * *

The plaintiff submitted a lost note affidavit prepared by Dereje D. Badada, a vice president for its loan servicer. According to that affidavit, the note had “been inadvertently lost, misplaced or destroyed,” and the loan servicer had “not pledged, assigned, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of the note.” There was no allegation in the lost note affidavit that the note had ever been delivered or assigned to the plaintiff, nor were there any details regarding when or how the note was lost, who searched for the note, or when they searched for the note. Therefore, the lost note affidavit did not establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note or the facts preventing it from producing the note (see UCC 3-804 …). U.S. Bank N.A. v Kohanov, 2020 NY Slip Op 07242, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

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