A foreclosure legal action was brought by M&T Bank. Dr. Colleen Farrell submitted an answer to the foreclosure lawsuit. In it she claimed she had not been served with the preliminary notice the bank was putting the property into foreclosure required under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1304.
Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
The bank made a motion for summary judgement and Dr. Farrell opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the bank’s complaint for failure to properly serve a 90 day notice prior to initiating the foreclosure lawsuit. In the application, Farrell claimed the service on his receptionist of the 90 day notice was invalid. He took the position she was not authorized to accept the service of this document. M&T Bank took the position Dr. Farrell was properly served. They claimed it was irrelevant as to whether his receptionist was authorized to accept service. In addition the bank claimed Farrell wasn’t even entitled to a 90 day notice under Real Property Actions and Proceeding Law section 1304. They took this position because the doctors office was not his principal place of residence. The court took into consideration that while Dr. Farrell claimed his receptionist was not authorized to accept service, she did not deny that she had been served. The court ruled whether or not she had authority to accept service was irrelevant since she had been served.
90 Day Pre Foreclosure Notice was Required
The court ruled however that section 1304 90 day pre foreclosure service requirements applied to Farrell even if he was not living at the premises. Since the bank failed to show strict compliance with the 90 day pre foreclosure notice requirement the court granted Farrell’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint due to the bank not having met its minimum statutory requirements prior to initiating the foreclosure lawsuit.
