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 (RPAPL) 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof defendant was properly served with notice pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was insufficient. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he bank failed to submit an affidavit of service, or proof of mailing by the post office, evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the affidavit of the employee of the plaintiff’s successor in interest failed to establish that the notices were sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. The affiant did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity that allegedly sent the RPAPL 1304 notice. Accordingly, her affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Nor was the affidavit of the employee of the plaintiff’s successor in interest sufficient to lay a foundation for the admission of business records to establish a proper mailing. The affiant did not state that the records of the entity that allegedly sent the RPAPL 1304 notice had been incorporated into the records of the plaintiff’s successor in interest and were routinely relied upon by the successor in interest in its business … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Vrionedes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08622, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

You might also like
THIS LAWSUIT BY A PENNSYLVANIA PENSION FUND AGAINST A LONDON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY TRIGGERED THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK’S CONFLICT-OF-LAW RULES (“PROCEDURAL” VS “SUBSTANTIVE”) AND THE “FORUM NON CONVENIENS” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​
REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE.
BECAUSE, BASED ON A LINE OF DUTY REPORT, THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOCATION OF PETITIONER’S SLIP AND FALL, THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY A DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE (SECOND DEPT).
Statements Made by Defendant Indicating He Was On a First Name Basis with Police Officers and that He Had Been in Jail Should Not Have Been Admitted Because the Statements Were Not Relevant to a Material Issue in the Case, The Error Was Harmless However
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED BY THE POLICE; THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL RULES IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE-CHASES THAN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THE INTERNAL RULES COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED A MISIDENTIFICATION DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL BUT CONCEDED THE ISSUE IN SUMMATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; A WITNESS MAY IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL DESPITE A PROCEDURALLY-DEFECTIVE PRE-TRIAL IDENTIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT AN AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY ISSUES; DEFENDANTS, IN THEIR MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT-ORDERED DISCOVERY WAS “WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS;” DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PRECLUDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

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 DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE IT WAS IN THE CHILD’S... EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S CUSTODY...