What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court and ordered confirmation of the Referee's report and entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of the lender.

Why did the court rule for the lender?

Because the lender submitted an affidavit from corporate counsel for its loan servicer and supporting records that showed the borrower's payment history, default date, and amounts due, which the court found sufficient to support the Referee's report.

Who is affected by this decision?

The borrower (respondent) and the lender (appellant) are directly affected; the decision permits the lender to proceed with foreclosure and sale based on the confirmed Referee's report.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes, the lender or borrower could seek leave to appeal to a higher court (Court of Appeals), subject to applicable deadlines and standards for leave to appeal.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v. Obatusin

Docket Index No. 808811/22|Appeal No. 6425|Case No. 2025-03874|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilReversed

Filed: Apr 21, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Reversed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02385
Docket numbers: Index No808811/22Appeal No6425Case No2025-03874

Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County order denying plaintiff's motion to confirm a Referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court (Bronx County) and granted plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society's motion to confirm a Referee's report and enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court found the Referee's report was substantially supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff's corporate counsel for its loan servicer, which detailed the borrower's full payment history, established default as of October 1, 2008, and set forth the unpaid principal balance and accrued interest. The court relied on precedent permitting business records and servicer-calculated amounts when properly supported.

Issues Decided

Whether the Referee's report on foreclosure was substantially supported by the loan servicer's affidavit and records.
Whether records and calculations provided by a loan servicer and authenticated by corporate counsel may be admitted as business records to establish default and amounts due.

Court's Reasoning

The court concluded the affidavit of corporate counsel for the loan servicer provided sufficient foundation and personal knowledge about the servicer's records and practices to support admission of the payment history and balances. The servicer's uncontested calculations of principal and accrued interest, tied to the note's fixed interest rate and specified days, were corroborated by submitted records. Prior decisions allow records received from other entities when the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker's business practices or incorporation into the recipient's records.

Authorities Cited

Bank of Am., N.A. v Brannon156 AD3d 1, 10 (1st Dept 2017)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon171 AD3d 197, 209 (2d Dept 2019)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v Ifemesia239 AD3d 1022, 1024 (2d Dept 2025)
AC 31, LLC v Fawer232 AD3d 454, 454-455 (1st Dept 2024)

Parties

Appellant: Wilmington Savings Fund Society
Respondent: Adefunke Obatusin
Defendant: City of New York Environmental Control Board
Attorney: Michael Falkowski (Richland & Falkowski, PLLC)
Judge: Naita A. Semaj
Judge: Renwick, P.J.
Judge: Friedman
Judge: Gesmer
Judge: Pitt-Burke
Judge: Hagler

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-21
Supreme Court order entered: 2025-06-18

What You Should Do Next

1
Clerk to enter judgment of foreclosure and sale
The Clerk of the Court should enter the judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of Wilmington Savings Fund Society as directed by the appellate order.
2
Borrower should consult counsel
If the borrower wishes to challenge the judgment further, they should promptly consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other post-judgment relief.
3
Lender may proceed with foreclosure sale
After entry of the judgment, the lender may take the procedural steps required under New York law to conduct a foreclosure sale and enforce the judgment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division reversed the lower court and ordered confirmation of the Referee's report and entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of the lender.
Why did the court rule for the lender?: Because the lender submitted an affidavit from corporate counsel for its loan servicer and supporting records that showed the borrower's payment history, default date, and amounts due, which the court found sufficient to support the Referee's report.
Who is affected by this decision?: The borrower (respondent) and the lender (appellant) are directly affected; the decision permits the lender to proceed with foreclosure and sale based on the confirmed Referee's report.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes, the lender or borrower could seek leave to appeal to a higher court (Court of Appeals), subject to applicable deadlines and standards for leave to appeal.

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

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Obatusin - 2026 NY Slip Op 02385

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Obatusin

2026 NY Slip Op 02385

April 21, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, etc., Appellant,

Adefunke Obatusin, Respondent, City of New York Environmental Control Board, et al., Defendants.

Decided and Entered: April 21, 2026

Index No. 808811/22|Appeal No. 6425|Case No. 2025-03874|

Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Hagler, JJ.

Richland & Falkowski, PLLC, Long Island City (Michael Falkowski of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered June 18, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion to confirm a Referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the Referee's report confirmed, and the Clerk directed to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale in favor of plaintiff.

Contrary to Supreme Court's determination, the Referee's report was substantially supported by the affidavit of corporate counsel for plaintiff's loan services, which detailed defendant borrower's complete loan payment history, establishing the borrower's default in payment on October 1, 2008, as well as the unpaid principal balance (
see

Bank of Am., N.A. v Brannon
, 156 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2017];
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon
, 171 AD3d 197, 209 [2d Dept 2019] [records received from other entities "may be admitted into evidence if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker's business practices and procedures, or establish that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient's own records and routinely relied upon by the recipient in its own business"]). Moreover, the loan servicer's uncontested calculations of the total amount owed, which included the unpaid principal balance, together with accrued interest, calculated using the subject note's fixed interest rate, for a specified number of days, was supported by the submitted records (
see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Ifemesia
, 239 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2d Dept 2025];
see also

AC 31, LLC v Fawer
, 232 AD3d 454, 454-455 [1st Dept 2024]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 21, 2026