A New York appellate court has upheld a lower court's decision in a mortgage foreclosure case involving Jorge Contreras. The ruling, issued on November 12, 2026, confirms that Citimortgage, Inc. can proceed with foreclosure on a property owned by Contreras. This decision is significant as it reinforces the importance of proper notification procedures in foreclosure actions.

The court's ruling came after a nonjury trial where the Supreme Court of Nassau County had previously struck Contreras's answer to the foreclosure action. The court also appointed a referee to determine the amount owed to Citimortgage. This case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by homeowners in foreclosure situations and the legal requirements that must be met by lenders.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Citimortgage, Inc., the plaintiff, and Jorge Contreras, the appellant. Citimortgage initiated the foreclosure action against Contreras concerning a mortgage on a property located in Freeport, New York. The dispute arose when Citimortgage claimed that Contreras had defaulted on the mortgage payments.

The case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York after Contreras appealed a March 19, 2025, order from the Supreme Court of Nassau County. In that order, the lower court had ruled in favor of Citimortgage, striking Contreras's answer and appointing a referee to compute the amount due to the lender.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Betsy Barros, Cheryl E. Chambers, Laurence L. Love, and James P. McCormack, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court ruled that the evidence presented during the nonjury trial supported the finding that Citimortgage complied with the legal requirements for notifying Contreras of the foreclosure action.

The court stated, "Proper service of an [*2] RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and noncompliance mandates dismissal of the complaint."

The court also noted that the process server testified to having served Contreras with the necessary documents, including the RPAPL 1303 notice, which was in the required format. The court found that Contreras did not provide any evidence to challenge this claim, leading to the conclusion that the lower court's determination was justified.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for homeowners facing foreclosure. It underscores the necessity for lenders to adhere strictly to notification requirements, as outlined in the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). By affirming the lower court's decision, the appellate court reinforces the idea that proper notification is crucial for the validity of foreclosure actions.

Moreover, this case may set a precedent for similar future cases involving foreclosure disputes. Homeowners and lenders alike will need to pay close attention to the legal requirements surrounding foreclosure notifications to ensure compliance and protect their rights.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals. However, given the appellate court's ruling, it is unclear if Contreras will pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.