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

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE NECESSARY PARTY CAN BE SUMMONED AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE ACTION CAN CONTINUE IN THE PARTY’S ABSENCE; THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMONING THE NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, explained the proper procedure where it is alleged the complaint should be dismissed for failure to include a necessary party, here the failure to include an estate in a foreclosure action. First the court should determine whether the party can be summoned, noting that the expiration of the statute of limitations is does not bar summoning the party. Second, if the party cannot be summoned the court should determine whether the action can continue in the party’s absence:

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1311 (1), ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, ‘[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the courtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein'” … . “Particularly where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, and alleges a default in payment subsequent to the death of the deceased mortgagor, the estate of the mortgagor is a necessary party to the foreclosure action” … .

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint, but rather for the court to order that the necessary party be summoned (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Contrary to the intervenors’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of a representative of [the] estate at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations, because the expiration of a statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional defect … .  … [W]hen jurisdiction over an absent necessary party “can be obtained only by [that party’s] consent or appearance, the court, when justice requires, may allow the action to proceed without [that party],” upon consideration of various enumerated factors (CPLR 1001[b] …). U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Germoso, 2023 NY Slip Op 02704, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here an estate was a necessary party in the foreclosure action. The proper procedure is for the court to determine if the party can be summoned, and, if not, whether the action can continue in the party’s absence. The fact that the statute of limitations had run did not preclude summoning the estate.

 

, ,

UNDER THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO CPLR 213, A BANK WHICH HAS STARTED A FORECLOSURE ACTION CANNOT STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the 2022 amendment to CPLR 213 (the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act [FAPA]) overruled the recent Court of Appeals case which held a voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action stopped the running of the statute of limitations. In addition, the Second Department ruled the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

FAPA amended CPLR 3217, governing the voluntary discontinuance of an action, by adding a new paragraph (e), which provides that “[i]n any action on an instrument described under [CPLR 213(4)], the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.” * * *

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish … it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Cynthia Wallace, an officer of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter SLS), the plaintiff’s loan servicer, was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Wallace attested that she was familiar with the types of records maintained by SLS in connection with the loan, that she had personal knowledge of the procedures for creating the records, and that the plaintiff mailed the notices, but she failed to attest that she personally mailed the notices or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff or SLS. Therefore, Wallace failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed (see id.). The plaintiff also failed to submit any domestic return receipts or other documentation proving the certified and first-class mailings … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Stewart, 2023 NY Slip Op 02487, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A recent amendment CPLR 213 prohibits a bank which has started a foreclosure action from stopping the running of the statute of limitations by voluntarily discontinuing the action.

Practice Point: If the bank doesn’t prove strict compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304, its summary judgment motion in a foreclosure action must be denied.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing its prior decision after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether it was notified of the tax foreclosure proceeding by defendant county. The Court of Appeals had ruled that, although the county proved the notice was mailed the letters were not returned, plaintiffs could prove the notice was not received by other evidence:

… “[A]lthough the statute contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is,by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance, an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) by other relevant proof, despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by section 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” … . …

Although we are aware that, on its own, failure to receive notice is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … , such failure, when combined with other evidence, can support a reasonable inference that defendants failed to comply with the mailing requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). … [I]f the notices were not received, there are only two real possibilities — either the procedure used by defendant County … failed to comply with RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) inasmuch as the wrong address was affixed, or the United States Postal Service made an error. When viewed in conjunction with the further facts that the certified mail tracking history indicated an unknown address and that the return receipt was unstamped, it is reasonable to infer, together with the additional evidence of nonreceipt, that the notices were not correctly mailed and that the County failed to comply with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02148, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: In this tax foreclosure proceeding, the county submitted prima facie proof it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1125 by submitting proof the letters were mailed and not returned. However, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that the notice was not received, which raised a question of fact about whether the county in fact complied with RPAPL 1125.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, HE WAS A TITLE-HOLDER AND WAS LISTED AS A BORROWER ON THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Kalenborn was entitled to the RPAL 1304 notice of foreclosure even though he did not sign the note. Kalenborn held title to the property and was listed as a “borrower” on the mortgage:

… [D]efendants established that the plaintiff failed to serve Douglas Kalenborn with notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304, and, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Douglas Kalenborn was entitled to such notice as a “borrower” within the meaning of that statute. Although Douglas Kalenborn did not sign the note, the plaintiff conceded that both of the defendants were title owners of the subject property and both executed the mortgage as a “borrower.” “Where, as here, a homeowner defendant is referred to as a ‘borrower’ in the mortgage instrument and, in that capacity, agrees to pay amounts due under the note, that defendant is a ‘borrower’ for the purposes of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding . . . any ambiguity created by a provision in the mortgage instrument to the effect that parties who did not sign the underlying note are not personally obligated to pay the sums secured” … . Since Douglas Kalenborn “signed the mortgage as a ‘borrower’ and, in that capacity, agreed to pay the amounts due under the note, [he] was entitled to notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Kalenborn, 2023 NY Slip Op 02109, Second Dept 4-26-23

Practice Point: Here defendant did not sign he note but he was a title-holder and was listed as a borrower on the mortgage. Therefore defendant was entitled to notice of the foreclosure which met the requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, ,

​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the notice of foreclosure was mailed to defendant in accordance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff did not submit proof of actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures. Further, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, including “how the mail was transmitted to the postal service” … . Freedom Mtge. Corp. v King, 2023 NY Slip Op 02105, Second Dept 4-26-23

Practice Point: The plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove how the notice of foreclosure was transmitted to the postal service. Therefore compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not proven and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SOUGHT RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE IN SUCH A PROCEEDING (REMOVAL OF A TERRACE CONSTRUCTED ABOVE PETITIONER’S RESIDENCE); THE APPELLATE COURT CONVERTED THE PETITION TO A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 103 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Article 78 petition seeking the removal of a terrace constructed above petitioner’s property sought relief not available pursuant to Article 78 but converted the petition to a complaint pursuant to CPLR 103[c]:

RPAPL 871(1) authorizes the owner of any legal estate in land to maintain an action for an injunction directing the removal of a structure encroaching on such land. “Even where the facts which would justify the grant of [such] an extraordinary remedy are established, the court must still decide whether, in the exercise of a sound discretion, it should grant the remedy, and if granted, the terms and conditions which should be annexed to it” … . Consequently, that branch of the petition which was to compel the respondents to remove the terrace did not seek the performance of a purely ministerial act which can be obtained in a CPLR article 78 proceeding … .

Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), however, a proceeding should not be dismissed “solely because it is not brought in the proper form,” and this Court has the power to convert a proceeding into the proper form … . Under the circumstances, we convert so much of the proceeding as sought to compel the respondents to remove the terrace into an action, deem that branch of the petition which was to compel the respondents to remove the terrace to be the complaint, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the complaint. Matter of Dicker v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01673, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: An Article 78 proceeding is not appropriate for relief beyond a ministerial act, here the removal of a terrace constructed above petitioner’s residence. Here the appellate court converted the petition to a complaint seeking that relief pursuant to CPLR 103.

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense (alleging failure to comply with RPAPL 1306) should not have been granted to the plaintiff in this foreclosure action. Because there was no proof of when the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed, proof that plaintiff had filed papers with the superintendent of financial services pursuant to RPAPL 1306 was insufficient. RPAPL 1306 requires filing within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice. But the date of mailing was not proven:

… [I]n the absence of evidence establishing when the plaintiff mailed the notices required by RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff could not establish, as a matter of law, that it complied with the requirement of RPAPL 1306 to file with the superintendent of financial services within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304. Thus, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defendant’s fifth affirmative defense as alleged a failure to comply with RPAPL 1306…. . PROF-2013-S3 Legal Title Trust V v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01204, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if there is no proof when the RPAPL 1304 notice of default was mailed, the bank can’t prove the papers filed pursuant to RPAPL 1306 were filed within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice (which is a requirement of strict compliance with RPAPL 1306).

 

, , ,

AN ALBANY LOCAL LAW ADDED RESTRICTIONS TO EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND RENT INCREASES WHICH ARE NOT IN THE STATE’S REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW AND REAL PROPERTY LAW; THE LOCAL LAW WAS THEREFORE PREEMPTED BY THE STATE LAW (CONFLICT PREEMPTION) (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Albany Local Law governing evictions conflicted with the state Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and Real Property Law and was therefore preempted by state law. The entire Local Law F section 2 was nullified. Local Law F section 2 added sections 30-324 through 30-331 to the Code of the City of Albany:

We agree with Supreme Court that Local Law F § 2 is preempted by state law. To that end, the Code of the City of Albany § 30-327 requires a landlord seeking to evict a tenant to prove the additional element of “good cause,” which grounds are enumerated in the Code of the City of Albany § 30-328. This additional element contravenes the statutory construction of RPAPL 711, which permits a landlord to seek eviction following the expiration of a tenant’s lease or following a tenant’s default on rent. By adding an element, the Code of the City of Albany §§ 30-327 and 30-328 “prohibit[ ] conduct specifically permitted by State law or impose[ ] restrictions on rights granted by the State”… . Similarly, the Code of the City of Albany §§ 30-327 and 30-328 contradict Real Property Law § 228, as they require a landlord seeking to evict a tenant at will or by sufferance who has provided 30 days’ notice to also establish good cause for the eviction. Further, the Code of the City of Albany § 30-328 interferes with a landlord’s right to increase rent in compliance with Real Property Law § 226-c, as it imposes the additional requirement that a landlord must rebut a presumption that a rent increase of 5% or more is unconscionable. Therefore, despite defendants’ good intentions, the Code of the City of Albany §§ 30-327 and 30-328 impose restrictions on rights granted to landlords by state law and, thus, Supreme Court properly declared those provisions nullified by conflict preemption … . Pusatere v City of Albany, 2023 NY Slip Op 01124, Third Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: Here an Albany Local Law added restrictions to eviction proceedings and rent increases which are not in the state’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and Real Property Law. The Local Law was therefore preempted by the state law (conflict preemption). Ultimately the entire Local Law was nullified.

 

,

THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE DOES NOT VIOLATE RPAPL 1304 AND IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (CT APP) ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the appellate division, determined the inclusion of additional information in the envelope with the 90-day foreclosure notice required by RPAPL 1304 does not violate the statute and therefore is not a basis for summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a foreclosure action:

The operative statutory language here contains two requirements: (1) the notice “shall include” the specified language and information; and (2) the notice must be sent “in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice” … . As to the first requirement, subdivision (1) does not say that the notice must state only the cautionary language set forth in the statute, but rather that the notice “shall include” that language. Where the “natural signification of the words employed” “ha[s] a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity or contradiction, there is no room for construction and courts have no right to add or take away from that meaning” Here, the notice indisputably contains all of the mandatory language set forth in the version of section 1304 (1) in effect at the time Bank of America commenced this action. The statute says that the notice “shall include” certain information; the notice here does so.

The question then is the constraint imposed by the requirement that the envelope not contain “any other mailing or notice.” The bright line rule adopted by the lower courts effectively defines “any other mailing or notice” as “any additional material or information whatsoever.” Although it might be possible to read “other notice” as the lower courts did—such that any deviation from the statutory language, however minor, would void the notice—that interpretation would stand in great tension with “shall include,” a phrase that contemplates the addition of something else. The statute must be given “a sensible and practical over-all construction, which . . . harmonizes all its interlocking provisions” … . Application of a bright line rule here would require the use of a highly constrained definition of “other,” where it is more appropriately read to mean mailings or notices “of a different kind.” Here, “other mailing or notice” more aptly refers other kinds of notices, such as pre-acceleration default notices, notices disclosing interest rate changes to borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Kessler, 2023 NY Slip Op 00804, CtApp 2-14-23

Practice Point: The inclusion of additional information in the same envelope with the RPAPL 1304 90-day foreclosure notice does not violate RPAPL 1304 and is no longer a basis for awarding summary judgment to a defendant in a foreclosure action.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing or compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“[A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through proof that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of commencement of the action” … . Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and a chain of purported allonges ending with an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were on pieces of paper completely separate from the note, were “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

Johnson’s [the foreclosure specialist’s] affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …  Further, Johnson’s affidavit failed to address the nature of Fay’s [plaintiff’s loan servicer’s] relationship with LenderLive [third-party vendor which sent the RPAPL 1304 notice] and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into Fay’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Johnson’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Finally, the tracking 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 …) . US Bank N.A. v Okoye-Oyibo, 2023 NY Slip Op 00457, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here there was no evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note; therefore the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action was not demonstrated.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

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