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
A SEX OFFENDER MAY PETITION ANNUALLY FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; SUCH A PETITION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY PRIOR PETITIONS WITHIN A YEAR SEEKING OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT), ​
RPAPL 1301(3) PROHIBITS MORE THAN ONE FORECLOSURE AT A TIME; THE VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE HERE WAS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED; THE PRIOR ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE INSTANT ACTION WAS COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT).
POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE PROCEEDS OF A TRUST HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO DECEDENT BEFORE HIS DEATH, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT RETAINED THE PROCEEDS AT THE TIME OF DEATH; IF SO, PURSUANT TO THE WILL, THE BEQUEST DID NOT LAPSE AND THE PROCEEDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE NAMED BENEFICIARIES (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING; APPELLANT’S MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
A Forged Deed Is Void Ab Initio and Conveys Nothing to a Bona Fide Purchaser or Encumbrancer

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

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...