• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • About
  • Services
  • Team
  • Blog
  • Careers
  • Contact

No More “Re-Notice” Requirement Westchester and Putnam County

February 11, 2014 by Michael Derosa

February 11, 2014

Westchester County and Putnam County just became more favorable places to have a Foreclosure Settlement Conference for non-performing note investors in lieu of a new unwritten rule of the Part.

Previously, if a borrower failed to appear at the first scheduled settlement conference, which is mandated by CPLR §3408, the appearing attorney for the noteholder would be unsuccessful at having the matter released from the foreclosure settlement conference part as the policy was not to default non-appearing borrowers the “first time on.” Instead, attorneys for individuals and large institutions that own non-performing notes were required to re-notice the borrower of the next available conference date, which traditionally was not scheduled for two-three months later due to heavy volume.

Now, the time in the conference stage, especially for non-appearing borrowers has been dramatically as there is no longer a re-notice requirement for first time “no shows”.  Because the conference lag time has been cut down and foreclosure actions are able to proceed much more quickly, Westchester and Putnam County have spurred even greater interest from NPN investors.

Should you have any questions on NPN’s in these Counties specifically or any foreclosure matter in NY/NJ please follow the link below to contact me directly.

Written by: Michael Derosa, Esq.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

PRACTICE AREAS

  • Default Services
  • Residential
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Commercial Transactions
  • Foreclosures
  • Bankruptcy
  • Evictions

POPULAR ARTICLES

New Jersey’s Governor Murphy Partially Vetoes Bill Dubbed as the Community Wealth Preservation Program

The Second Reverses a Lower Court Order Allowing Defendant to File a Responsive Pleading

New York’s Appellate Division Holds Reverses a Lower Court’s Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Action

Appellate Court Rejects Defendant’s Arguments and holds that Plaintiff Complied with Statutory Condition Precedents to Foreclosure

Recent NY case finds lack of NY form of Certificate of Conformity an Irregularity

Upcoming changes to Debt Validation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2021)

Appeals Court of MA reviews Preclusion and Res Judicata in a Foreclosure action

NY Appellate Court finds failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 when mailing of the 90-day notice jointly addressed to two+ borrowers in a single envelope

NY Appellate Court addresses whether Administrative Code of NYC licensing under Section 20-490 applies to Mortgage Plaintiff

NY Hardship Declaration stay extended to January 15, 2022

Authors Name

Adam Friedman (5)
  • Recent NY case finds lack of NY form of Certificate of Conformity an Irregularity
  • Upcoming changes to Debt Validation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2021)
  • Appeals Court of MA reviews Preclusion and Res Judicata in a Foreclosure action
  • NY Appellate Court finds failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 when mailing of the 90-day notice jointly addressed to two+ borrowers in a single envelope
  • NY Appellate Court addresses whether Administrative Code of NYC licensing under Section 20-490 applies to Mortgage Plaintiff
Michael Derosa (3)
  • A Good Faith Notice Before Moving For Default
  • No More “Re-Notice” Requirement Westchester and Putnam County
  • How Quickly Can a Mortgagee Complete an Uncontested Foreclosure Action in NY?
Oran Schwager (4)
  • New Jersey’s Governor Murphy Partially Vetoes Bill Dubbed as the Community Wealth Preservation Program
  • The Second Reverses a Lower Court Order Allowing Defendant to File a Responsive Pleading
  • New York’s Appellate Division Holds Reverses a Lower Court’s Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Action
  • Appellate Court Rejects Defendant’s Arguments and holds that Plaintiff Complied with Statutory Condition Precedents to Foreclosure
Ralph Vartolo (1)
  • Criticism of Cuomo’s Certificate of Merit Law & The Real Effects It Will Have

© 2023 Friedman Vartolo LLP. All Rights Reserved

This website may constitute attorney advertising under the New York Code of Professional Responsibility. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

DESIGNED BY BOFILL TECH