BANK OF AMERICA BAC LP LP v. and Sandra B. Spencer, Defendant–Appellant. (2018)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, those parts of the motion seeking summary judgment on the amended complaint, seeking to strike the answer of defendant Sandra B. Spencer, and seeking appointment of a referee are denied, and the fifth through ninth ordering paragraphs are vacated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to foreclose a mortgage secured by residential property owned by Sandra B. Spencer (defendant).  We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion seeking, inter alia, summary judgment on its amended complaint against defendant.  In her pro se answer to the amended complaint, defendant alleged that the loan was subject to Federal Housing Administration guidelines and that plaintiff failed to comply with the regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development requiring the mortgagee to undertake certain pre-foreclosure measures, including a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor, with respect to such loans.  Although defendant did not specifically cite 24 CFR 203.604, the regulation establishing the face-to-face meeting requirement, in her answer, we afford the pro se answer a liberal reading (see generally HSBC Mtge. Corp. [USA] v. Johnston, 145 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 43 N.Y.S.3d 575 [3d Dept. 2016]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erobobo, 127 A.D.3d 1176, 1177, 9 N.Y.S.3d 312 [2d Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 25 N.Y.3d 1221, 16 N.Y.S.3d 514, 37 N.E.3d 1158 [2015] ), and conclude that defendant “sufficiently apprise[d] plaintiff” that she was challenging plaintiff's compliance with the requirements of that regulation (Johnston, 145 A.D.3d at 1241, 43 N.Y.S.3d 575).

Plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with the requirements of 24 CFR 203.604 and thus failed to establish that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the amended complaint (see Green Planet Servicing, LLC v. Martin, 141 A.D.3d 892, 893, 34 N.Y.S.3d 911 [3d Dept. 2016]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Teed, 48 Misc.3d 194, 196–197, 4 N.Y.S.3d 826 [Steuben County Ct. 2014]; cf.  U.S. Bank N.A. v. McMullin, 55 Misc.3d 1053, 1060–1064, 47 N.Y.S.3d 882 [Sup. Ct., Albany County 2017] ).  More specifically, plaintiff did not arrange or attempt to arrange a face-to-face interview with defendant at any time “before three full monthly installments ․ [were] unpaid” (§ 203.604[b] ).  Instead, the first attempt was made in June 2011, i.e., more than six months after the first installment went unpaid.  Moreover, plaintiff did not establish that it sent notices to defendant by certified mail, as required by section 203.604(d).