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

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE WRONG TYPEFACE IN THE RPAPL 1303 NOTICE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the typeface requirements for the RPAPL 1303 notice. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied:

RPAPL 1303 “requires the foreclosing party to deliver, along with the summons and complaint, a notice titled ‘Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure’ in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one-to-four family dwellings. The statute mandates that the notice include specific language relating to the summons and complaint, sources of information and assistance, rights and obligations, and foreclosure rescue scams. It also mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type” … . “Proper service of the notice required by RPAPL 1303 . . . is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and it is the plaintiff’s burden to show compliance with that statute” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden since it is not apparent upon review of the copy of the RPAPL 1303 notice served upon the defendant that the correct typeface was utilized. In addition, the process server’s affidavit of service did not indicate that the notice served upon the defendant complied with all of the requirements of RPAPL 1303, including the proper typeface … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Assim, 2022 NY Slip Op 06000, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must strictly comply with the notice requirements in RPAPL 1303, including the size of the typeface. The use of the wrong typeface precludes the commencement of the action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES LISTED IN THE RPAPL 1304 WERE DESIGNATED BY THE NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the five housing counseling agencies listed on the 90-day notice were designated by the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) at the time the notice was sent:

“It is the plaintiff’s burden, on its motion for summary judgment, to demonstrate its strict compliance with the applicable provisions of RPAPL 1304” … . As relevant here, RPAPL 1304(2) … required that the 90-day notice sent to the borrower “contain a list of at least five housing counseling agencies as designated by the division of housing and community renewal, that serve the region where the borrower resides,” and that the lists of designated agencies published on the websites of the New York State Department of Financial Services (hereinafter DFS) and the DHCR be used by the lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer to meet these requirements … .

… [P]laintiff failed to establish … its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304(2), as it failed to demonstrate that the five entities listed on the 90-day notices sent to the defendant were designated by the DHCR as of when the notices were sent … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Maldonado, 2022 NY Slip Op 05974, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: If the bank in a foreclosure action does not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements in RPAPL 1304 it is not entitled to summary judgment. At time of this action, RPAPL 1304 required that five housing counseling agencies be listed in the RPAPL 1304 notice and that the agencies be designated by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). Here the bank didn’t demonstrate the five agencies were so designated so its motion for summary judgment shouldn’t have been granted.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS STRICT FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REFORECLOSURE UNDER RPAPL 1503; REFORECLOSURE IS AN OPTION WHEN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE MAY BE VOID OR VOIDABLE AS AGAINST ANY PERSON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in this strict foreclosure action to add a cause of action for reforeclosure under RPAPL 1503:

Section 1503 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law establishes an action in reforeclosure where an original foreclosure judgment, sale, or conveyance may be void or voidable as against any person. The statute grants a purchaser the right to maintain an action “to determine the right of any person to set aside such judgment, sale or conveyance or to enforce an equity of redemption or to recover possession of the property, or the right of any junior mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage” (id.). “Such action may be maintained even though an action against the defendant to foreclose the mortgage under which the judgment, sale or conveyance was made, or to extinguish a right of redemption, would be barred by the statutes of limitation” … . Bank of N.Y. v Karistina Enters., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05828, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Reforeclosure under RPAPL 1503 may be available when the original mortgage is void or voidable as against any person.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not not submit sufficient proof of compliance with the notice-of-default provisions of RPAPL 1304. Among other deficiencies, the documents necessary to prove the notice was mailed were not attached to the affidavit stating the mailing requirements were met:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Crystal Jean McClelland, a vice president of loan documentation for the plaintiff, 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. The plaintiff failed to provide any documentation from the United States Post Office demonstrating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail. Further, while McClelland attested that she was familiar with the business records maintained by the plaintiff, had personal knowledge of the operation of and the circumstances surrounding the preparation, maintenance, distribution, and retrieval of records in the plaintiff’s record-keeping system, and had knowledge of how the plaintiff drafted, generated, triggered, sent, and stored letters in the servicing process, she did not present proof of a standard office mailing procedure by the plaintiff designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed. Since the plaintiff failed to provide proof 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 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kowalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 05887, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Another example of what the banks get wrong when trying to prove strict compliance with the foreclosure notice-of-default provisions of RPAPL 1304 at the summary judgment stage.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank in this foreclosure action did not present sufficient proof of defendants’ default and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice-of-default requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment by submitting the affidavit of Brian Nwabaka, an employee of its loan servicer, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Bayview). Nwabaka averred that, based upon his review of unspecified business records, the defendants defaulted in making monthly payments in October 2008. However, Nwabaka did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the defendants’ alleged default in payment. Moreover, Nwabaka failed to identify which records he relied on to assert a default in payment, and the notice of default annexed to Nwabaka’s affidavit was insufficient to establish the alleged default in payment … .

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affidavits of Nwabaka and Rosalind Carroll, document coordinator for Bayview, each of whom averred that the 90-day notices were sent by certified and first-class mail. However, neither Nwabaka nor Carroll attached any documents showing proof of mailing by first-class mail, nor did they aver that they had personal knowledge of the purported mailings or were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bayview … . Although Nwabaka attested to his familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of Countrywide Home Loan, the prior loan servicer, he did not aver to familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of Bayview, which purportedly sent the 90-day notices. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Mannino, 2022 NY Slip Op 05675, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Yet again the affidavits offered by plaintiff-bank in a foreclosure action were not sufficient to demonstrate defendants’ default or plaintiff’s compliance with the notice-of-default requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, ,

CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE AND VACATION OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR A COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501, NOT, AS HERE, BY A CROSS-MOTION; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s cross-motion to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) should not have been granted because that relief must be sought in an action or counterclaim, not by motion. The issue was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the cross motion which was pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage and vacate the notice of pendency, since relief pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) must be sought in an action or counterclaim and not by motion … . Although the plaintiff raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court … . U.S. Bank N.A. v O’Rourke, 2022 NY Slip Op 05558, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Cancellation and discharge of a mortgage and vacation of a notice of pendency pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) must be sought by an action or a counterclaim, not, as in this case, by a cross-motion. The issue may be raised for the first time on appeal because it is a matter of law and could not have been avoided had it been raised in Supreme Court.

 

, ,

AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 and therefore should not have been awarded summary judgment:

… [A]lthough the plaintiff submitted a copy of the 90-day notice purportedly sent to the defendant by Green Tree [the loan servicer], it failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notice was actually mailed, either through an affidavit of mailing, other proof of mailing by the post office, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure. Instead, the plaintiff merely submitted an affidavit from a representative of its attorney-in-fact, averring that the 90-day notice was sent by Green Tree in accordance with RPAPL 1304. That conclusory, unsubstantiated averment, standing alone, was insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed to the defendant by first-class and certified mail … . Moreover, the affiant based his assertions upon his review of unspecified business records without attaching any such business records to his affidavit … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Fernando, 2022 NY Slip Op 05231, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, at the summary judgment  stage, proof the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304 cannot be demonstrated by an affidavit which refers to documents that are not attached.

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING 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 plaintiff bank did not attach the business records relied on to prove defendant’s default and did not lay a proper foundation for the records purporting to show compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the defendant’s default in payment under the note. In her affidavit, Wallace [employee of the loan servicer] stated that the defendant failed to make certain payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage, but she failed to identify the records that she relied upon and did not attach those records to her affidavit … .

… The plaintiff relied upon Wallace’s affidavit, in which she averred that the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent to the defendant by certified and first-class mail. Although Wallace averred that she had personal knowledge of [the loan servicer’s] record-keeping practices and procedures, the business records she relied upon and attached to the affidavit were created by other entities. Wallace did not aver that she had personal knowledge of those entities’ business practices and procedures, or otherwise provide a proper foundation for the admission of those records … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Zakarin, 2022 NY Slip Op 05229, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: To prove a defendant’s default in a foreclosure action, the documents relied upon must be attached to the papers.

Practice Point: A proper foundation must be laid for documents relied upon to prove compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 in a foreclosure actions. Here the documents were not created by the affiant.

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL 1304 WHICH REQUIRES THAT NOTHING ELSE BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not comply with the “separate envelope” for the notice of foreclosure required by RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it failed to show its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304(2). The “separate envelope” mandate of RPAPL 1304(2) provides that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice.” The copies of the 90-day notice submitted by the plaintiff included additional notices not contemplated by RPAPL 1304(2). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notice was “‘served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice'” …. it failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 ,,, , Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Ghosh, 2022 NY Slip Op 05076, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: If the bank includes other information in the envelope containing the notice of foreclosure, the bank has not complied with RPAPL 1304 and is not entitled to summary judgment.

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s proof of mailing of the foreclosure notice first submitted in reply should not have been considered, and plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he affidavits that the plaintiff appended to its moving papers failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by first-class mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304. While the plaintiff submitted an additional affidavit in reply, with proof of first-class mailing attached, this evidence should not have been considered in the determination of whether the plaintiff met its prima facie burden, as the issue which the new evidence was intended to address was not an issue raised for the first time in the defendants’ opposition, and the defendants were not afforded an opportunity to submit a surreply in response to the plaintiff’s newly submitted evidence in reply … . …

[Re; standing:] …[T]he plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the 2003 note and 2004 note, which together constituted the consolidated note, and each note was accompanied by an undated purported allonge endorsed to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the purported allonges, each of which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the corresponding note, was “so firmly affixed” to the corresponding note “as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2022 NY Slip Op 05110, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Evidence of compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 first submitted in reply should not have been considered.

Practice Point: The bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action.

 

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