In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upheld a decision that affects Jack A. Cohen and Marlene Cohen in a mortgage foreclosure case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the Cohens' request to vacate a previous foreclosure judgment. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal process surrounding mortgage foreclosures and the responsibilities of defendants in such cases.
The case, Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Cohen, was filed under docket number 2023-07706 and centers around a dispute involving the foreclosure of a mortgage on a property located in Brooklyn. The ruling was issued on July 29, 2026, by Justices Colleen D. Duffy, Paul Wooten, Laurence L. Love, and Phillip Hom.
The dispute began in June 2011 when Branch Banking and Trust Company (the plaintiff) initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Cohens, among other defendants. Jack Cohen responded to the lawsuit by filing an answer that included several defenses but did not cite a failure to comply with New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304, which outlines notice requirements for mortgage foreclosures. Marlene Cohen did not respond to the complaint at all.
As the case progressed, the plaintiff sought summary judgment against Jack and a default judgment against Marlene. The court granted these motions in a September 2017 order. The plaintiff later moved to confirm a referee's report and obtain a judgment of foreclosure and sale. However, the defendants opposed this motion, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304. In March 2019, the court denied both the plaintiff's motion and the defendants' cross-motion.
In November 2019, after the plaintiff sought to reargue its motion, the court granted the plaintiff's request, confirming the referee's report and ordering the sale of the property. Following this, the Cohens filed a motion in March 2023 to vacate the foreclosure judgment and dismiss the complaint, citing the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with RPAPL 1304.
The court ruled against the Cohens, stating that they did not provide a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the plaintiff's earlier motions. The court noted, "Where a defendant seeks to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) based on intrinsic fraud, he or she must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action." The court found that the Cohens failed to demonstrate either of these requirements.
Additionally, the court pointed out that Jack Cohen could not raise the issue of the plaintiff's compliance with RPAPL 1304 because he did not oppose the plaintiff's earlier motions. Furthermore, Marlene Cohen's failure to respond to the complaint or appear in court also barred her from arguing the same point.
The ruling confirms the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in foreclosure cases. It highlights that defendants must actively participate in legal proceedings and raise defenses in a timely manner. The court emphasized that the lack of a reasonable excuse for their defaults made it unnecessary to explore whether the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action.
This decision has significant implications for the Cohens and their Brooklyn property. By upholding the foreclosure judgment, the court allows the plaintiff to proceed with the sale of the property, which could result in the loss of the Cohens' home. The ruling also serves as a reminder to other defendants in foreclosure cases about the importance of understanding their legal rights and responsibilities.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving mortgage foreclosures in New York. It underscores the necessity for defendants to be vigilant and proactive in defending against foreclosure actions. The court's decision reinforces that failing to respond appropriately can lead to unfavorable outcomes.
As for the Cohens, they may have limited options for appeal. The court's ruling affirms the lower court's decision, but they could potentially seek further review in a higher court. However, details about any related cases or additional appeals were not available in the court filing.