Cox v. First Citizens Bancshares, Inc.
Docket 2025-00760
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02388
- Docket
- 2025-00760
Appeal from an order denying plaintiffs' CPLR 3215 motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granting the defendant's CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment complaint.
Summary
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and modified the dismissal order by treating the defendant's motion as a request for declaratory relief and granting it. The court held that the plaintiffs' one-day-old, prematurely filed default motion was properly denied, and that, even accepting the plaintiffs' allegations, there is no legal basis to declare them released from their mortgage because the defendant's failure to produce a chain of title does not itself free them from the loan. The case is remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the defendant's entitlement to that declaration.
Issues Decided
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment when they moved the day after commencing the action and on the same date as service.
- Whether the complaint stated a valid cause of action for a declaratory judgment releasing the plaintiffs from their mortgage based on the defendant's failure to produce the chain of title.
- Whether, as a matter of law, the defendant is entitled to a declaration that its failure to produce the chain of title does not release the plaintiffs from the mortgage loan.
Court's Reasoning
The court held the default motion was premature because CPLR 3215 permits a default judgment only when a defendant has failed to appear, plead, or otherwise proceed, and here the defendant timely answered. For the declaratory claim, CPLR 3001 and 3017 require a justiciable controversy and specification of the rights sought; even assuming the plaintiffs' allegations true, there is no legal basis to release them from the mortgage merely because the defendant did not produce a chain of title. The court concluded that as a matter of law the defendant was entitled to a declaration to that effect, and any claim about lack of standing in foreclosure would be premature.
Authorities Cited
- CPLR 3215
- CPLR 3211(a)(7)
- CPLR 3001
- Hoffman v. Syracuse2 NY2d 484
- Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor25 NY3d 355
Parties
- Appellant
- Sandy Cox
- Appellant
- Valerie Cox
- Respondent
- First Citizens Bancshares, Inc.
- Judge
- Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
- Judge
- William G. Ford
- Judge
- Deborah A. Dowling
- Judge
- Susan Quirk
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Order date (Supreme Court order appealed)
- 2024-12-27
- Plaintiffs' notice of motion date
- 2024-07-09
- Defendant's answer interposed
- 2024-07-25
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Entry of declaratory judgment
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, should enter the judgment declaring that the defendant's failure to produce the chain of title does not entitle the plaintiffs to be released from the mortgage loan.
- 2
Consult an attorney about substantive claims
If the plaintiffs wish to challenge the defendant's right to enforce the mortgage, they should consult counsel to evaluate appropriate claims and timing, including defenses in any future foreclosure action.
- 3
Consider appeal or rehearing
If dissatisfied, the plaintiffs may explore seeking permission to appeal to a higher court or move for reargument in the Appellate Division, noting procedural deadlines and grounds are limited.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed denial of the plaintiffs' default-motion and held that the defendant is entitled to a declaratory judgment that failing to produce a chain of title does not release the plaintiffs from their mortgage.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiffs (Sandy and Valerie Cox) and the defendant bank are directly affected; the decision also reiterates that borrowers cannot obtain release from a mortgage solely because the bank did not produce chain-of-title documents on request.
- What happens next in this case?
- The case is sent back to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to enter a judgment declaring that the defendant's failure to produce the chain of title does not free the plaintiffs from the mortgage.
- Can the plaintiffs still challenge the bank's right to enforce the mortgage?
- Yes, but a claim that the bank lacks standing to foreclose would be premature at this stage and must be raised in an appropriate foreclosure action when/if filed.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Cox v First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02388 Cox v First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 02388 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Sandy Cox, et al., appellants, v First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., etc., respondent. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2025-00760, (Index No. 611892/24) Mark C. Dillon, J.P. William G. Ford Deborah A. Dowling Susan Quirk, JJ. Sandy Cox and Valerie Cox, Westbury, NY, appellants pro se. Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY (Michael V. Margarella and Diane A. Bettino of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In an action for certain declaratory relief, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Leonard D. Steinman, J.), entered December 27, 2024. The order denied the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint. ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint, and adding a provision thereto deeming the cross-motion to be for a declaratory judgment in the defendant's favor, and thereupon granting the cross-motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant's failure to respond to the plaintiffs' request to produce the chain of title for the subject mortgage loan does not entitle the plaintiffs to be released from the subject mortgage loan. In July 2024, the plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment "releasing" them from their mortgage loan. In their verified complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they are the mortgagors and the defendant is the mortgagee with regard to the mortgage loan. They further alleged that on March 28, 2024, they mailed a letter to the defendant requesting production of the chain of title for the mortgage loan, which the defendant did not originate. Despite delivery of the letter the following day, the defendant failed to produce the chain of title as requested. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to a declaratory judgment releasing them from the mortgage loan. By notice of motion dated July 9, 2024, the plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment. Subsequently, on or about July 25, 2024, the defendant interposed a timely verified answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. In an order entered December 27, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion. The plaintiffs appeal. First, contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment. A plaintiff may seek a default judgment against a defendant pursuant to CPLR 3215(a) only when the "defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial of an action reached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect to proceed." Here, the plaintiffs prematurely moved for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant one day after commencing this action and on the same date as service of the summons and complaint, to which the defendant timely interposed an answer ( see id. § 320[a]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment was properly denied. Pursuant to CPLR 3001, "[t]he supreme court may render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy" ( see DiGiorgio v 1109-1113 Manhattan Ave. Partners, LLC , 102 AD3d 725, 728). "[T]he demand for relief in the complaint shall specify the rights and other legal relations on which a declaration is requested" (CPLR 3017[b]; see DiGiorgio v 1109-1113 Manhattan Ave. Partners, LLC , 102 AD3d at 728). In general, a motion to dismiss the complaint in a declaratory judgment action presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief has been stated, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration ( see DiGiorgio v 1109-1113 Manhattan Ave. Partners, LLC , 102 AD3d at 728; Matter of Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v Town of Poughkeepsie , 87 AD3d 1148, 1150). Accordingly, if a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court's power to render a declaratory judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy, a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied ( see DiGiorgio v 1109-1113 Manhattan Ave. Partners, LLC , 102 AD3d at 728; Matter of Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v Town of Poughkeepsie , 87 AD3d at 1150). However, where the court, deeming the allegations of the complaint to be true, is nevertheless able to determine, as a matter of law, that the defendant is entitled to a declaration in its favor, the court may enter a judgment making the appropriate declaration ( see Hoffman v Syracuse , 2 NY2d 484, 487; DiGiorgio v 1109-1113 Manhattan Ave. Partners, LLC , 102 AD3d at 728; Matter of Tilcon N.Y., Inc. v Town of Poughkeepsie , 87 AD3d at 1150). Here, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment releasing them from the mortgage loan based on allegations that the defendant, as the alleged holder but non-originator of the loan, did not respond to the plaintiffs' request to provide them with the chain of title. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, there is no legal basis for the requested declaration, and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a judgment declaring that its failure to respond to the plaintiffs' request to produce the chain of title for the mortgage loan does not entitle them to be released from the loan ( see generally Hoffman v Syracuse , 2 NY2d at 487). To the extent the complaint could be viewed as seeking a declaratory judgment releasing the plaintiffs from the mortgage loan based on allegations that the defendant lacks standing to enforce the loan in a foreclosure action, such a cause of action would be premature and an improper request for an advisory opinion ( see Matter of JDM Holdings, LLC v Village of Warwick , 200 AD3d 880, 883). Significantly, a plaintiff seeking to foreclose a mortgage must merely be the owner or holder of the note at the time of commencement of the mortgage foreclosure action, which is not alleged to have yet occurred ( see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor , 25 NY3d 355, 361). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment as set forth herein. DILLON, J.P., FORD, DOWLING and QUIRK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph