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
THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FRONT DRIVER STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE RELIED ON COMPARISONS WITH STANDARD SAMPLES IN THEIR LABS BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF THE SAMPLES; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS’ OPINIONS RELIED ON EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
No “Special Relationship” Between Plaintiff and City, City Not Liable for Shooting of the Plaintiff by a Civilian as Police Were Leaving the Scene of a Disturbance
Late Motion for Judicial Approval of a Settlement Properly Denied—Delay In Seeking Approval Was Due to Plaintiff’s Own Fault or Neglect
PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CASE; THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE THREE-MONTH DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INSURER DENIED FOUR CLAIMS FOR NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH FOUR DISTINCT CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENTS PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT TO A WOMAN INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; EACH OF THE FOUR CLAIMS WAS FOR AN AMOUNT BELOW $5000; AN ARBITRATOR AWARDED THE CLAIMED BENEFITS TO THE DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF THEN SOUGHT DE NOVO REVIEW OF THE ARBITRAL AWARDS WHICH HAS A $5000 THRESHOLD; THE FOUR DISTINCT ARBITRAL AWARDS CANNOT BE COMBINED TO MEET THE $5000 THRESHOLD (SECOND DEPT). ​
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

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...