You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE...
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS SERVED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There exist questions of fact on whether plaintiff has standing and whether the RPAPL 1304 notice was served:

The borrower raised a meritorious standing defense based on questions as to the sufficiency of the content of the conclusory lost note affidavit, which does not state that a thorough and diligent search was made based on a review of the business records or anything else, does not state that any search was made or by whom, and does nothing to indicate when approximately the note was lost … .

The borrower also raised a plausible notice defense regarding plaintiff’s service of the requisite 90-day notice under RPAPL 1304 … . AS Helios LLC v Chauhan, 2018 NY Slip Op 08565, First Dept 12-13-18

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT NEW YORK’S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS IN “MAJORITY-MINORITY” NEIGHBORHOODS; COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT-LANDLORD VIOLATED NYC LOCAL LAW NO. 1 BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE HAZARDOUS LEAD-PAINT CONDITION IN PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CHILD’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HIS FOREMAN WHEN INJURED BY AN IMPROPERLY HOISTED LOAD, HE COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Trial Court’s Failure to Address Defendant’s Requests to Proceed Pro Se Required Reversal
Stray Remarks Doctrine Applied in Action Under New York City Human Rights Law

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

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPANELED AN ANONYMOUS JURY (CT APP). CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER...