You are here: / / BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL...

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). Therefore the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … .. In moving for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Jason Ussery, a representative of its loan servicer, who stated that “[a]t least 90 days prior to the commencement of the action, notice was sent to Defendant by certified mail and first class mail to the last known address of the Defendant and, if different, to the residence that is the subject of the mortgage.” Ussery annexed copies of the 90-day notices mailed to the defendant, all of which contained a bar code with a 20-digit number below it, but no language indicating that a mailing was done by first-class or certified mail, or even that a mailing was done by the U.S. Postal Service … . Moreover, Ussery did not make the requisite showing that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Zavolunov, 2018 NY Slip Op 00271, Second Dept 1-17-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Rare Example of Sufficiently Pled Cause of Action for Prima Facie Tort—Elements of Tortious Interference with a Contract Outlined
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO COMPLAINANT’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING COMPLAINANT ABOUT HER MENTAL HEALTH; CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Vacate Convictions Granted—People Failed to Provide “Brady” Material In Time for the Defense to Make Meaningful Use of It
HERE AN ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS WAS DEEMED NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
THE RENTAL-CAR DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RENTAL CAR WAS NOT NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE “GRAVES AMENDMENT,” THE RENTAL CAR DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE DISMISSED FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PETITION BECAUSE MOTHER HAD PREVIOUSLY COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN FLORIDA; BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice of Condition; Did Not Present Evidence of Last Inspection of Area Where Slip and Fall Occurred
“LAW OFFICE FAILURE” WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND D

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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE CHILD TO... BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304...