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

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the failure to comply with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, because that issue was not raised by the defendant, the bank need not prove compliance in a motion for a default judgment:

… [T]he plaintiff’s unopposed renewed motion for a default judgment was facially adequate pursuant to CPLR 3215(f), and therefore, should have been granted … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate its compliance with RPAPL 1304, since the failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not a jurisdictional defect, and that defense was never raised by the borrowers, who failed to appear or answer the complaint … . Moreover, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321 …). U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Green, 2019 NY Slip Op 04988, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, ,

PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner was not entitled to the surplus proceeds after a tax foreclosure sale:

We reject petitioners’ contention that they have a right to the surplus proceeds of the foreclosure sale. As respondent correctly contends, petitioners’ application for surplus proceeds was improperly predicated upon provisions of RPAPL article 13 that apply to surplus monies arising from the sale of property in mortgage foreclosure proceedings (see e.g.RPAPL 1361 [1]). RPAPL article 13, entitled “Action to Foreclose a Mortgage,” does not apply to properties acquired by a tax district pursuant to an in rem foreclosure proceeding under RPTL article 11. Thus, petitioners’ reliance on RPAPL article 13 and cases involving mortgage foreclosures is misplaced … . …

Moreover, petitioners are not entitled to surplus proceeds under RPTL article 11. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion that RPTL article 11 is “silent” regarding any remaining interest that former property owners may have, such as entitlement to surplus proceeds upon the sale of the property following a default judgment of foreclosure, the statute provides that, when property owners neither redeem the property nor interpose an answer, the tax district is entitled to a deed conveying an estate in fee simple absolute and the property owners are “barred and forever foreclosed of all . . . right, title, interest, claim, lien or equity of redemption” that they may have had in the property (RPTL 1136 [3] …). Where the tax district obtains a valid default judgment of foreclosure, which is presumed here given that the default judgment is not subject to challenge on this appeal, the formr property owners are not “entitled to any compensation upon the resale of the property” … , and the tax district may “retain . . . the entire proceeds from [the re]sale” … . Matter of Hoge v Chautauqua County, 2019 NY Slip Op 04821, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, ,

BANK’S PROOF OF DEFAULT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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. The proof of default did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. And the proof mailing in accordance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions, including the affidavit of Daphne Proctor, a “Document Execution Specialist” employed by the loan servicer, failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the business records relied on by the plaintiff to establish the defendant’s default in repayment of the subject loan … . Notably, to the extent that Proctor’s “purported knowledge of [the defendant’s] default was based upon her review of unidentified business records created and maintained by [the loan servicer], her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value” … .

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The record contains a single 90-day notice with no clear indication as to whether the mailing was made by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail  … . Furthermore, Proctor, who asserted that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, did not aver in her affidavit that she was familiar with the loan servicer’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … , nor did she aver that she had mailed the notices herself. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kohli, 2019 NY Slip Op 04751, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD EXPIRED SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE BANK UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATION WITH DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE DEBT HAD NEVER BEEN ACCELERATED; CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ACCELERATION OF A MORTGAGE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined that the bank’s (Deutsche Bank’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s RPAPL article 15 action to cancel and discharge the mortgage should have been granted. The bank had started foreclosure proceedings in 2007 and plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the statute of limitations had run. However, the 2007 action had been dismissed because the bank did not have standing at the time it was brought. The Second Department determined the documentary proof of the dismissal of the 2007 action demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the debt had never been accelerated and, therefore, the statute of limitations had never started running. The decision provides a succinct and clear explanation of the requirements for a dismissal based on documentary evidence and the requirements for accelerating a mortgage debt:

… [C]ontrary to the plaintiff’s contention and the opinion of our dissenting colleague, the commencement of the foreclosure action, which was dismissed on the ground that Deutsche Bank lacked standing, was ineffective to constitute a valid exercise of the option to accelerate the debt since Deutsche Bank did not have the authority to accelerate the debt at that time … . The plaintiff did not identify the specific time when the mortgage was actually, legally accelerated. Furthermore, the notices of default were nothing more than letters discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which do not “constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause” … . …

Consequently, the allegations in the complaint that the debt was accelerated as of April 30, 2007, the date when Deutsche Bank commenced the underlying foreclosure action, or prior to April 30, 2007, when the notices of default were sent, are utterly refuted by the documentary evidence submitted by Deutsche Bank, which included the written assignment of the mortgage [dated after April 30, 2007) “together with the . . . note” and the October 2009 order [dismissing the foreclosure action], in support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint … . Moreover, Deutsche Bank, through the evidence it submitted with its motion, demonstrated that the plaintiff’s allegation that the statute of limitations to foreclose the subject mortgage had expired was “not a fact at all,” and that “it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it,” warranting dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . J & JT Holding Corp. v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04366, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate it had complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The court noted that evidence submitted in reply was properly considered because the opposing party had an opportunity to respond:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304(1) provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in RPAPL 1304, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. RPAPL 1304(1) sets forth the requirements for the content of such notice and RPAPL 1304(2) further provides that such notice must be sent “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” to the last known address of the borrower. “[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … .

Here, even considering the affidavit of Victoria Bressner submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, the plaintiff failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Bressner did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the record indicates that the notices were not mailed by the plaintiff. LNV Corp. v Sofer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02860, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

THE PROOF REQUIRED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FOR BOTH PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS, IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, ON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE PROVISIONS, EXPLAINED; PRIOR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Iannacci, reversing Supreme Court, fleshed out the proof required for summary judgment, for both plaintiffs and defendants, with respect to compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). The court noted that prior decisions holding that a defendant’s denial of receipt of notice was enough should no longer be followed:

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Crampton [assistant vice president of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC] stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened. There is no copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute. Further, while Crampton attested that she was in receipt of the prior loan servicer’s records, that she had personal knowledge of the business practices for mailing of notices by Wilmington, and that the 90-day notice was sent in compliance with RPAPL 1304, she did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of Bank of America, the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendant. * * *

Even in the face of a plaintiff’s failure to establish, prima facie, that a notice was properly mailed on a motion for summary judgment on the complaint, this Court has held that a defendant still has to meet its burden, on a cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, of establishing that the condition precedent was not fulfilled … . Here, the defendant provided no particulars supporting her claim that Bank of America never mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice to her last known address. The defendant only stated that she never received the notice. The defendant did not confirm that she still lived at the address shown on the notice on the date it was purportedly mailed, that she had been receiving other mail at that address, and that she was never contacted by the United States Post Office about mail for which she was required to sign. We hold that a simple denial of receipt, without more, is insufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. To the extent that our prior decisions are to the contrary, they should no longer be followed. Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02846, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent (the holder of the note) did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304. Therefore respondent’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

“[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “The statute requires that such notice . . . be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower” … . …

The respondent, which submitted only a copy of the required notice, and did not submit any evidence that the notice was mailed in the manner required by the statute, failed to meet its prima facie burden with respect to the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Specifically, the respondent did not submit “an affidavit of service, [or] proof of mailing by the post office evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304 [by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to his last known address]” … , 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” … . Marchai Props., L.P. v Fu, 2019 NY Slip Op 02511, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff instead relied on the “Affidavit of Mailing” of a vice president of loan documentation of Wells Fargo. However, the affiant did not aver that she personally mailed the notice, and she did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and, therefore, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …. Similarly, the presence of numbered bar codes on the copies of the 90-day statutory notices submitted by the plaintiff did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Offley, 2019 NY Slip Op 02377, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank failed to 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 relied upon the affidavit of an employee who claimed that the plaintiff’s business records showed that RPAPL 1304 notices were sent by certified and first-class mail. However, the documentary evidence submitted in support of those claims redacted certain tracking numbers and failed to establish, prima facie, that the notices were mailed by first-class mail … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Succes, 2019 NY Slip Op 02058, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, ,

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate that the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were met:

… Lechtanski [the loan servicer representative] did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and failed to make the requisite showing that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore, did not establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the copy of the notice annexed to the Lechtanski affidavits, while bearing a notation “VIA CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL,” bears no indicia of actual mailing such as postal codes and was unaccompanied by any mailing receipts or tracking information … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Taylor, 2019 NY Slip Op 01817, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

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