Browsing Category
Appellate Judges
15 posts
New York Appeals Court Upholds Foreclosure Dismissal: Mortgage Lender’s Tardy Excuse Falls Short
Time-Barred: Appeals court affirms foreclosure dismissal in Queens Case, citing lender’s delayed excuse for absence at key conference.
Judge Francis A. Khan III Favored HSBC Bank USA, N.A. but Appeals Panel Ruled for Homeowner
HSBC Bank did not establish that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304(1). In other words, mandatory language and information matters.
Homeowner Defeats OneWest Bank in Financial Crisis Related Indymac Mortgage
OneWest Bank failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its lengthy delay in moving to vacate the August 2012 dismissal order.
Second Circuit: Bayview Loan Servicing Foreclosure Sale is Void
Residential Property at risk: 72 Grandview Ave, North Plainfield, NJ 07060
Second Circuit Drops Successors and Assigns Language – or Shoes – to Dismiss FHFA from Class Action
FHFA did not succeed to the interests of Freddie Mac until Sept. 2008, so it acquired no interest in Freddie Mac’s NovaStar bonds until then.
The Importance of 90 Day Mailed Notices (RPAPL 1304)
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants did not waive their contention that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304
The Importance of Service of Process In Court Cases
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion and the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive her jurisdictional defense.
Prior Opinion Citing Law Firm’s Attorney Fees at $53 Per Hour Snubbed by Second Circuit to Pay Same Firm $1,557 Per Hour
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart Aaron of Manhattan had awarded $19,350 — or $750 per hour — after concluding $1,600 per hour was a windfall.
2008 Wells Fargo Foreclosure Case Bounced in 2022 Due To Service Failures
Wells Fargo exhibited an unreasonable lack of diligence in the prosecution, including in the attempt to effectuate service of process
Farrell’s Foreclosure is Subject to Limitations and You’re Outta Time.
The order dismissing the 2009 action was entered on April 1, 2019, yet service upon defendant was not effected until over six months later.
