You are here: / / BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA...
,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET.

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action because the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule were not met:

Here, the plaintiff attempted to establish its standing by submitting the affidavit of Kelly Thompson, an Assistant V.P., Operations Team Manager, at Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter BANA), the servicer of the defendant Juliet Willis’s loan on behalf of the plaintiff. Thompson averred, in relevant part, that her affidavit was based upon her review of BANA’s business records, and that upon review of such records, the note was physically transferred to the plaintiff “in or about March 2007.” The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Thompson were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) because Thompson, an employee of BANA, did not attest that she was personally familiar [*2]with the plaintiff’s recordkeeping practices and procedures … . Bank of N.Y. v Willis, 2017 NY Slip Op 03468, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY.
“BEST EVIDENCE RULE” CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NOT MET HERE.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Labor Law 241(6) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Power Washing Was Integral to the Painting Process and Was Not “Routine Maintenance”
Assumption of Risk Extends to Construction of Baseball Field
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT ENTITLED TO FULL NAMES OF ALL PERSONS WHOSE INITIALS APPEAR ON A DNA LAB REPORT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION ISSUED RE: JUDGE WHO ORDERED DISCLOSURE.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; THE PETITION WAS GRANTED; BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED ON WHETHER MODIFICATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER GRANTING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE...