Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hirsch

186 A.D.3d 1458

128 N.Y.S.3d 854 (Mem)

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent,

v.Matthew HIRSCH, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

2019–06012

Index No. 58082/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—March 2, 2020

September 16, 2020

Joseph E. Ruyack III, Chester, NY, for appellant.

Gross Polowy LLC (Reed Smith LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brenda Beauchamp Ward and Andrew B. Messite ], of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Matthew Hirsch appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), dated December 4, 2018. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated September 21, 2018, inter alia, granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Matthew Hirsch and for an order of reference, and an order of the same court also dated September 21, 2018, inter alia, referring the matter to a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and directed the sale of the subject property.

ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Matthew Hirsch and for an order of reference are denied, those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale are denied, and the orders dated September 21, 2018, are modified accordingly.

The plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action, on its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Matthew Hirsch (hereinafter the defendant) and for an order of reference, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its compliance with RPAPL 1304 because it failed to lay a proper foundation for the business records submitted as proof that the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by first-class mail (see RPAPL 1304[2] ; CPLR 4518[a] ). In particular, the representative of the plaintiff who attempted to lay such...