H&R Block Bank, FSB v. Liles, 186 A.D.3d 813

In Oct. 2006 Liles executed an adjustable-rate note for $408,600 with Option One, secured by a Levittown mortgage; the note bore an allonge with an endorsement in blank.
H&R Block Bank, FSB commenced foreclosure in Aug. 2013, alleging default and asserting it complied with RPAPL 1304; Liles denied RPAPL 1304 compliance and pleaded lack of standing among other defenses.
H&R Block moved for summary judgment (Dec. 2016), submitting an affidavit from a Nationstar document specialist and copies of 90‑day notices; the Supreme Court granted the motion and an order of reference in March 2017 and a foreclosure judgment was entered Aug. 27, 2018.
On appeal, the Second Department dismissed direct appeals from the March 17, 2017 orders as moot (appeal rights ended with entry of the judgment) but reviewed the issues on the appeal from the judgment.
The Appellate Division reversed the foreclosure judgment, holding H&R Block did not establish prima facie strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 (insufficient proof of mailing and office mailing practices) and therefore summary judgment and reference should have been denied; one bill of costs awarded to Liles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of RPAPL 1304 to this loan	RPAPL 1304 defense applies only to high‑cost or subprime loans per RPAPL 1302(2)	RPAPL 1304 (as amended) applies to any "home loan," so its notice requirements are applicable and may be raised	RPAPL 1304 applies to home loans as amended; RPAPL 1302(2) does not negate 1304's broader notice requirement
Whether H&R Block proved strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 (90‑day notice)	Mahdak affidavit and copies of notices suffice to establish mailing and compliance	Affidavit lacked personal knowledge of mailing, no USPS certified/registered mail receipts, and no proof of Nationstar's mailing practices	Plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing: affidavit lacked personal knowledge, no USPS mailing evidence, and no proof of standard office practice; summary judgment should have been denied
Procedural: appeals from March 17, 2017 orders	—	—	Appeals from the March 17 orders dismissed as direct appeals because the right terminated with entry of the final judgment; issues preserved and reviewed on appeal from the judgment

Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241 (establishes that entry of final judgment terminates right of direct appeal from interlocutory orders)
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Weisblum, 85 A.D.3d 95 (discusses RPAPL 1304 amendment and that its notice requirements apply to "home loans")
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Spanos, 102 A.D.3d 909 (RPAPL 1304 applies to loans qualifying as "home loans")
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Espinal, 134 A.D.3d 876 (a noncompliance defense under RPAPL 1304 may be raised even if loan is not high‑cost or subprime)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Williams, 170 A.D.3d 1142 (confirms RPAPL 1304 notice is a condition precedent and part of plaintiff's prima facie burden)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Bermudez, 175 A.D.3d 667 (discusses evidentiary requirement for proving mailing and proof of office mailing practices)