You are here: / / BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION...
,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the action:

In support of its motion, Arch Bay submitted the affidavit of Selena Mitcherson, an assistant vice president of Rushmore Loan Management Services (hereinafter Rushmore), the loan servicer for Arch Bay’s assignee [Wachovia]. Mitcherson averred, based upon her review of Rushmore’s business records, that “[t]he note . . . was in Plaintiff’s physical possession of the note [sic] when the action was commenced.” Under these circumstances, Arch Bay failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Mitcherson under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since Mitcherson did not attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of Wachovia … . Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 2017 NY Slip Op 00284, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE INMATE LACKED THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A REASONED DECISION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TREATMENT FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA, PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WAS NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE INMATE’S NEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
Not Enough Evidence Before Family Court to Make Custody Determination
Criteria for Labor Law 200 Claim Explained
Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained
PLAINTIFF IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A PRIOR IDENTICAL ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND ORDERS; THE INSTANT ACTION IS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S KIDNAPPING CONVICTIONS VACATED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER, DEFENDANT WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF MURDER, BURGLARY AND ROBBERY, APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR STANDING TO EXAMINE 353 BALLOTS CAST IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION FOR QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS WON BY ONLY 55 VOTES (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED FOR OIL SPILL ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPER... HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) LIABILITY APPLIED, DEFENDANTS...