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
Proceeds of Sale of Property After Dissolution of Partnership Not “Profits”
THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, HE WAS A TITLE-HOLDER AND WAS LISTED AS A BORROWER ON THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE; THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS CRIMINALLY USURIOUS; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Police Violated Defendant’s Constitutional Rights by Pushing Door Open and Entering Apartment When Defendant Answered the Door—The “Payton” Violation (a Warrantless Arrest Inside Home) Mandated Suppression of Defendant’s Statement
Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Property Owners Are Not Responsible for the Maintenance of Tree Wells Within the Sidewalk

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...