You are here: / / BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY...
,

BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 in serving the 90-day notice. The documents submitted by plaintiff’s employee (Gantner) did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service … or proof of mailing by the post office, evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Gantner’s affidavit and attached business records were not sufficient to establish that the notices were sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. While mailing may be proven by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the rule against hearsay under CPLR 4518 … , here, Gantner did not aver that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Therefore, Gantner’s unsubstantiated and conclusory statements were insufficient to establish that the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed to the defendant by first-class and certified mail … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pappas, 2017 NY Slip Op 01177. 2nd Dept 2-15-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED)

You might also like
THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE REPORT THAT A SUSPICIOUS CAR WAS FOLLOWING SOMEONE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE CAR AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANYONE WHEN STOPPED; THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSING BY DRIVING ON THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STOP RELIED UPON BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRECLUDE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO MOVE FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED BY KINGS COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8 (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; HERE, BECAUSE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, A CONDITION PRECEDENT; DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DNA EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A CRIMINALIST WAS IN PART TESTIMONIAL, THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TENANT HARASSMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SUPREME COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR THAT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT THE INSURANCE LAW PROVISION REQUIRING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE DOES NOT APPLY TO POLICE VEHICLES, PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER, INJURED IN AN ACCIDENT WITH AN UNINSURED MOTORIST WHILE DRIVING HIS POLICE VEHICLE, WAS ENTITLED TO UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE UNDER HIS OWN PERSONAL INSURANCE POLICY (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL... INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S...