You are here: / / BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE...

BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendants pursuant to the terms of the statute … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of an assistant secretary of the loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendants in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the loan servicer did not provide proof of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent proof of the actual mailing … . Investors Sav. Bank v Salas, 2017 NY Slip Op 05811, 2nd Dept 7-26-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE PROPERLY DENIED; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SERVICES BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH EYE-PROTECTION EQUIPMENT WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THAT DEFENDANT DOCTORS DID NOT DEPART FROM GOOD AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF.
THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACT; THE PURPORTED AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED $2.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
HIGHWAY LAW ALLOWING AN UNUSED PUBLIC EASEMENT TO BE DECLARED ABANDONED DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY OWNS A FEE INTEREST IN THE ROADBED.
THE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF A JURY TRIAL WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY OWNER EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS...