You are here: / / PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION...
,

PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof in this foreclosure action did not meet the criteria of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

We agree with defendants that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in support of its motion was insufficient to establish standing. The Caliber employee who authored the affidavit stated that Caliber maintains plaintiff’s books and records pertaining to the mortgage account; plaintiff had physical possession of the original note before the action was commenced and remained in physical possession of the original note as of the date of the motion; and he was personally familiar with Caliber’s record-keeping practices. However, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its records pertaining to defendants’ account were admissible as business records (see CPLR 4518 [a]), inasmuch as the affiant did not swear that he was personally familiar with plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures… .

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the mere attachment of a copy of the note to the verified complaint does not demonstrate that plaintiff had physical possession of the original note when the action was commenced … , and thus is insufficient to establish standing. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Anderson, 2017 NY Slip Op 05349, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A GUIDANCE COUNSELOR IN THE 1980’S; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S SUIT TO GO FORWARD UNDER A PSEUDONYM (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS PRESCRIBED ATIVAN, WHICH CAUSES DROWSINESS, IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, WAS DISCHARGED WHILE UNDER ITS INFLUENCE AND WAS INVOLVED IN A CAR ACCIDENT; THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED ON THE ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE AND THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE EFFECTS OF ATIVAN BOTH SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE DEEMED HARMLESS, A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROVIDE HEARSAY EVIDENCE AS MOLINEUX “BACKGROUND INFORMATION” (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER WAS SPRAYED WITH DIESEL FUEL AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO FILL THE TANK OF THE BUS SHE WAS DRIVING; THE MANUFACTURER OF THE GAS PUMP NOZZLE AND THE GAS STATION DEMONSTRATED THE NOZZLE AND THE GAS PUMP WERE WORKING PROPERLY; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A RELEVANT DESIGN FLAW IN THE FUEL SYSTEM OF THE BUS; THE NOZZLE MANUFACTURER’S AND THE GAS STATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE NEW STATUTE REQUIRING THE PEOPLE TO FILE AND SERVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WENT INTO EFFECT AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD ANNOUNCED READINESS FOR TRIAL; THE STATUTE RETURNED THE PEOPLE TO A STATE OF UNREADINESS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARING NECESSARY ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO CHANGE THE SURNAME OF ONE OF... ALTHOUGH NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN BROKER AND PLAINTIFF, CAUSE...