You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate it had complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The court noted that evidence submitted in reply was properly considered because the opposing party had an opportunity to respond:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304(1) provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in RPAPL 1304, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. RPAPL 1304(1) sets forth the requirements for the content of such notice and RPAPL 1304(2) further provides that such notice must be sent “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” to the last known address of the borrower. “[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … .

Here, even considering the affidavit of Victoria Bressner submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, the plaintiff failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Bressner did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the record indicates that the notices were not mailed by the plaintiff. LNV Corp. v Sofer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02860, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

You might also like
Appellant, Who Was Only Mentioned in the Complaint As the Holder of a Second Mortgage, Properly Appeared in the Action by Serving a Notice of Appearance Which Entitled Appellant to Be Kept Informed of the Progress of the Proceeding—There Is No Filing Requirement for a Notice of Appearance
New Affidavits Properly Allowed in Foreclosure Proceedings; Accuracy of the Execution or Notarizations of the Original Affidavits Could Not Be Confirmed
PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY PHOTOGRAPHER.
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF STEALING A CAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO SHOW KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT IN THIS CAR THEFT CASE, KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ACT, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
Weight of the Evidence Review Required Reversal
DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A DISMISSAL FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD 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

SNOWBOARDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY A CREVICE THAT HAD FORMED IN... DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND JURY IDENTIFYING THE PERSON DEPICTED...