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

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

​

The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendant pursuant to the terms of the statute … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of a vice president for loan documentation of the loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant 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 … .

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304. The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, submitting, inter alia, his own affidavit attesting that he did not receive any notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Henry, 2018 NY Slip Op 00326, Second Dept 1-17-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, BY A FORKLIFT WHICH WAS BACKING UP; THE FACT THAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS WERE OPTIONAL WAS NOT A DESIGN DEFECT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ALLEGING FAILURE TO INSPECT THE FORKLIFT, CRITERIA EXLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BANK ACCEPTED PAYMENTS IN LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT AFTER THE ALLEGED DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)
FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT WHERE DEFENDANT HAS ONLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
Tenancy by the Entirety Extinguished When Both Husband and Wife Convey their Interests to Same Grantee, Who then Conveys His Interest Back to the Husband and Wife
Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)
Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law
Question of Fact Whether Three-Family Residence Was Owner-Occupied–Administrative Code’s Exemption from Liability for Failure to Remove Ice and Snow May Not Apply

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

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY... AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT...