You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof demonstrating it provided the notice required by RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting his own affidavit attesting that he had not received any notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . In opposition, the plaintiff submitted only a copy of the required notice, but failed to submit any evidence that the notice was mailed in the manner required by the statute. Specifically, the plaintiff did not submit “an affidavit of service, . . . proof of mailing by the post office, evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304 [by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to his last known address]” … , or “proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding the label on the notice stating “Certified Article Number” and “Senders Record” and listing a 20-digit number on the top of the letter … . Thus, since the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the condition precedent of proper service of RPAPL 1304 notice upon him … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Heitner, 2018 NY Slip Op 07090, Second Dept 10-24-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ONCE THE JUDGE DETERMINED THERE WERE NECESSARY PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT JOINED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SUMMONED IF POSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS UNDER MEDICATION AT THE HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; AT TRIAL THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO REJECT THE STATEMENT IF THEY FOUND IT WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE; AND THE DEFENSE BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE EXCLUSION OF FOUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS NO WRITTEN RETAINER AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED WORDS AND ACTIONS SUFFICIENT TO ASSERT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Analysis Where Two or More Insurance Companies Insure the Same Risk and Insured

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

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT DID NOT STATE... BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT...