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
UTILITY BOX RECESSED IN CITY SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE POST ON LINKEDIN MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE “STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION” (SLAPP) DEFENSE TO THE DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED THE DEFAMATION ACTION HAS A “SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW;” THEREFORE THE ACTION SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 76-A (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
Trial Judge Can Rescind Mistrial Declaration; Retrial Okay Where Defendant Consents to Mistrial​
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT REBUTTED BY MOTHER’S EXPERT.
IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMPLICATED FORECLOSURE DECISION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED (1) WHEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND (2) THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED A PREDICATE SEX OFFENDER BASED UPON A MICHIGAN CONVICTION OF “BREAKING AND ENTERING AN OCCUPIED DWELLING WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE” (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game

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...