DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Nechemia Weberman appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated June 6, 2022. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon an order of the same court also dated June 6, 2022, granting the plaintiffs motion to confirm a referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and denying the cross-motion of the defendant Nechemia Weberman to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, granted the same relief to the plaintiff, confirmed the referees report, and directed the sale of the subject property.
ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiffs motion to confirm the referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale is denied, the order dated June 6, 2022, is modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
In 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Nechemia Weberman (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage on real property located in Brooklyn. The defendant failed to answer the complaint. In an order dated December 21, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs unopposed motion for an order of reference. In 2019, the plaintiff moved to confirm a referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale within one year of entry of the order of reference in accordance with part F of the Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules. In an order dated June 6, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs motion and denied the defendants cross-motion. In an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale also dated June 6, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs motion, confirmed the referees report and directed the sale of the subject property. The defendant appeals.
The appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale brings up for review the order dated June 6, 2022 (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Higgs, 189 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 134 N.Y.S.3d 783).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants cross-motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale within one year of entry of the order of reference in accordance with part F of the Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules. Under the circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in accepting the plaintiffs excuse for failing to comply with the court rule (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Baptiste, 218 A.D.3d 448, 449, 193 N.Y.S.3d 68; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Enitan, 200 A.D.3d 736, 739, 158 N.Y.S.3d 214; OneWest Bank, FSB v. Rodriguez, 171 A.D.3d 772, 773, 97 N.Y.S.3d 197).
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion to confirm the referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” (Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Konig, 153 A.D.3d 790, 790–791, 60 N.Y.S.3d 360). “However, computations based on the review of unidentified and unproduced business records ․ constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Laronga, 219 A.D.3d 1559, 1560, 197 N.Y.S.3d 531 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, the referees report was based upon her review, inter alia, of the note and mortgage, the summons and complaint, and an affidavit of merit and amount due, which listed the amount due to the plaintiff. However, as the defendant correctly contends, the affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant failed to produce the business records purportedly relied upon in making her calculations (see Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Coles, 223 A.D.3d 678, 680, 203 N.Y.S.3d 351; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Laronga, 219 A.D.3d at 1561, 197 N.Y.S.3d 531; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Barton, 199 A.D.3d 625, 627, 153 N.Y.S.3d 873).
The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion to confirm the referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new report computing the amount due to the plaintiff and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter.
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.