Key Takeaway
Wells Fargo v Meyers ruling weakens CPLR 3408 mortgage foreclosure protections, allowing banks to negotiate in bad faith without meaningful consequences.
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Meyers, 2013 NY Slip Op 03085 (2d Dept. 2013)
Can’t beat the banks.
Wells Fargo in this case, similar to so many banks an their law firms, lost applications and other paper work that was necessary in resolving the matter. A trial modification was offered but then rescinded and the Court found that the bank acted inappropriately. A hearing was held and the bank was forced to continue the trial modification until the note was repaid.
Bank appealed stating that CPLR 3408 did not allow this to happen and appealed. The Appellate Division Second Department, in a less than thoughtful opinion, has told the banks that it is okay not to compromise mortgage foreclosures in good faith, that this is acceptable behavior and that 3408 is salutary at best.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
(1) “Granting deference to the Supreme Court, which presided over this case, including the settlement conferences and the “good faith hearing” (see Decker v Decker, 91 AD3d 1291, 1292), we see no reason to disturb that court’s finding that Wells Fargo failed to satisfy its obligation pursuant to CPLR 3408(f) to “negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.”
** 3408 is the settlement conference that a bank must offer a mortgagor before a case moves to the general foreclosure calendar, where a summary judgment motion is made and an order of reference is granted.
(2) “It would certainly seem that CPLR 3408(f) and 22 NYCRR 202.12-a(c)(4) both provide the courts with the authority to take some action where a party fails to satisfy its obligation to negotiate in good faith. Again, CPLR 3408(f) mandates that the parties “shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible” (CPLR 3408). The provisions of 22 NYCRR 202.12-a echo the requirement of CPLR 3408(f), and further state that “he court shall ensure that each party fulfills its obligation to negotiate in good faith” (22 NYCRR 202.12-a).”
(3) While we do not rule out the possibility of other permissible remedies, we conclude that the one employed here—the imposition of the terms of the so-called “original modification agreement proposed by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendants” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Meyers, 30 Misc 3d at 701), as the new, binding terms of the agreement between the defendants and Freddie Mac—was unauthorized and inappropriate.”
(4) “Rewriting the parties’ agreement based on the terms of the first trial modification, against Wells Fargo’s will, upon a finding that Wells Fargo demonstrated bad faith, cannot be deemed a “mutually agreeable resolution” to the matter.”
I would have dissented and affirmed with costs. When a statute forces a party to compromise and act in good faith and the bank willfully defies the will of the statute, the supreme court, which has equitable powers, has to be able to do something.
Related Articles
- Understanding CPLR timing rules and summary judgment procedures
- How the CPLR 3212(g) paradigm affects motion practice
- When reasonable excuse can overcome procedural defaults
- Recent regulatory amendments impacting no-fault practice
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, CPLR 3408 has undergone several amendments affecting mandatory settlement conference procedures, good faith negotiation requirements, and judicial oversight mechanisms in foreclosure proceedings. Practitioners should verify current provisions as both procedural requirements and substantive obligations under the statute may have been modified through legislative updates and revised court rules.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
Car Accident Recorded Statement in New York: Should You Give One?
The at-fault driver's adjuster wants a recorded statement within days of a New York car accident — and that call is designed to weaken your case.
Apr 5, 2026
Who Pays Car Accident Medical Bills in New York? A Step-by-Step Guide
New York no-fault PIP, primary health insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, and litigation liens — the full payment ladder for car-accident medical bills.
Apr 5, 2026
Fee Schedule vs. Reasonable and Customary Charges: Avenues of Reimbursement in No-Fault Insurance
Court validates hybrid approach to no-fault reimbursement using both fee schedules and reasonable charges. New York and Long Island no-fault defense analysis.
Jul 30, 2022
Respond at your own peril
Court ruling on whether emails satisfy CPLR 2104 writing requirements in settlement agreements, analyzing Forcelli precedent and signature standards.
Jul 12, 2021
Corporate Representative's Right to Remain in Courtroom During NY Trial
NY appellate court holds defendant's employee representative can remain in courtroom and communicate with defense counsel during trial. Perry v Kone analysis.
Feb 23, 2017
Response to Sun's comment last week
Response to Sun's comment on blanket denials in New York no-fault insurance law, discussing DOI requirements and A&S Medical case interpretation.
Jun 3, 2011Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a no-fault matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
