You are here: / / STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT PROVEN, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT...
,

STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT PROVEN, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED 2ND DEPT.

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient proof that the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 were met:

… [W]here, as here, the plaintiff in a residential foreclosure action alleges in its complaint that it has served an RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrowers, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must “prove its allegation by tendering sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of material issues as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304” … .

Here, in moving for summary judgment, 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 … . Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the unsubstantiated and conclusory statement of a vice president of the plaintiff that “a 90-day default letter was sent in accordance with [ ] RPAPL 1304” was insufficient to establish that the required notice was mailed to the defendant by first-class and certified mail… . Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy its prima facie burden with respect to RPAPL 1304, its motion for summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers … . M&T Bank v Joseph, 2017 NY Slip Op 05587, 2nd Dept 7-12-17

FORECLOSURE (STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT PROVEN, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT PROVEN, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT PROVEN, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
“Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against An Insurer Which Fails to Pay a Patient’s Undisputed Medical Claim
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER, DUE TO UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS, NEGLECTED ONE CHILD AND DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE OTHER CHILDREN; THE CRITERIA FOR A NEGLECT FINDING IN THIS CONTEXT ARE LAID OUT IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE/BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS WERE PASSENGERS HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY ON A THROUGH ROAD; WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CAR STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN BEFORE PULLING OUT INTO THE PATH OF PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (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

EVIDENCE OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY... DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONFIGURATION AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS AND...