You are here: / / BANK’S PROOF OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL...
, ,

BANK’S PROOF OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s (Nationstar’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Defendant alleged in her answer that plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304. Therefore, in moving for summary judgment, the band was required to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304 and its evidence of compliance was insufficient because it did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

“Generally, in moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its prima facie case through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default” … . However, where, as here, a defendant raises the issue of compliance with RPAPL 1304 as an affirmative defense, the moving party is also required to make a prima facie showing of strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . * * *

Here, Nationstar relied on the affidavit of its employee, Michael Woods, who averred, in relevant part, that “the 90-day notices required by statute were mailed to [d]efendant by regular and certified mail to the last known mailing address and to the property address on January 3, 2013,” and that the letters “were sent in separate envelopes from any other mailing or notice.” However, the record contains a single 90-day notice, bearing the plaintiff’s letterhead and addressed to the defendant at the subject property, with no clear indication as to whether the mailing was made by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail. Moreover, Woods—who is not an employee of the plaintiff—did not aver in his affidavit to having any familiarity with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures. Bank of Am., N.A. v Bittle, 2019 NY Slip Op 00086, Second Dept 1-9-19

Similar issue and result in Bank of Am., N.A. v Kljajic, 2019 NY Slip Op 00087, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

You might also like
FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING HER CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
​HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR OR ANSWER AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TREATMENT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT; THE GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PLEA BE VACATED; HERE SUPREME COURT FELT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN FASHIONING A SENTENCE MUCH LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, LEAVING THE GUILTY PLEA IN PLACE (SECOND DEPT).
Not Enough Evidence Before Family Court to Make Custody Determination
ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (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

AWARDING FATHER SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY DID NOT HAVE A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS... DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT HAVE...