They served the wrong person. Eleven years later, the case lives on
Deutsche Bank kept a 21-year-old mortgage alive after serving the wrong person with court papers - and an appellate court just said that is fine.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed on October 14, 2026, that the lender could have extra time to properly serve a borrower in a foreclosure on a property in Amityville, New York - despite the original service landing on someone else entirely.
Here is the timeline. The borrower signed a note in July 2005, secured by a mortgage on the Amityville property. Deutsche Bank filed its first foreclosure in August 2010. That case was dismissed in March 2015 under CPLR 3215(c), which lets courts toss actions where a plaintiff takes too long to seek judgment on a default.
Deutsche Bank filed again that October. On October 10, 2015, a process server handed the summons, complaint, certificate of merit, and RPAPL 1303 notice to someone at the property believed to be the borrower.
It was not.
The borrower answered anyway, raising lack of personal jurisdiction. After years of competing motions, a December 2019 hearing confirmed what everyone suspected: the person served was not the borrower. The court directed Deutsche Bank to apply for more time.
The lender moved under CPLR 306-b, which gives courts discretion to extend the standard 120-day window for service. The borrower opposed and cross-moved to dismiss, arguing both defective service and noncompliance with RPAPL 1303’s notice requirements for residential foreclosures.
Suffolk County Supreme Court granted the extension. The borrower appealed.
The Second Department affirmed, applying the “interest of justice” standard - the more flexible of two tests under CPLR 306-b. That standard allows late service resulting from mistake, confusion, or oversight, provided the borrower suffers no prejudice. The court found Deutsche Bank had timely commenced the action, timely attempted service, and genuinely believed it was complete within the 120-day window. The defect only surfaced later, and the extension would not prejudice the borrower.
The borrower’s second argument - that Deutsche Bank failed to comply with RPAPL 1303 - went nowhere. RPAPL 1303 only applies when the property is an owner-occupied one-to-four family dwelling. The Amityville property was not owner-occupied.
For servicers managing long-tail New York portfolios, the practical point: defective service does not kill a foreclosure if the lender moves promptly once the defect surfaces and shows no prejudice to the borrower.
The decision is a slip opinion and may be revised before publication in the Official Reports.
