You are here: / / BANK’S PROOF OF DEFAULT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS...
, ,

BANK’S PROOF OF DEFAULT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of default did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. And the proof mailing in accordance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions, including the affidavit of Daphne Proctor, a “Document Execution Specialist” employed by the loan servicer, failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the business records relied on by the plaintiff to establish the defendant’s default in repayment of the subject loan … . Notably, to the extent that Proctor’s “purported knowledge of [the defendant’s] default was based upon her review of unidentified business records created and maintained by [the loan servicer], her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value” … .

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The record contains a single 90-day notice with no clear indication as to whether the mailing was made by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail  … . Furthermore, Proctor, who asserted that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, did not aver in her affidavit that she was familiar with the loan servicer’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … , nor did she aver that she had mailed the notices herself. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kohli, 2019 NY Slip Op 04751, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

You might also like
MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING EMPLOYERS TO ENSURE THE FLOOR AT THE WORK SITE IS NOT SLIPPERY DID NOT APPLY TO THE FLOOR OF A TRUCK OWNED AND OPERATED BY A THIRD PARTY WHICH DELIVERED MATERIALS TO THE WORK SITE; HERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE SLIPPED AND FELL ON OIL ON THE FLOOR OF THE TRUCK AS HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLOAD IT (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT IT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SETTLEMENT OF A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BY THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE; THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER’S BREACH-OF-THE-COVENANT-OF-GOOD-FAITH ACTION AGAINST THE PRIMARY CARRIER PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE, AS HERE, A PARTY IS A DEFENDANT IN ONE ACTION AND A PLAINTIFF IN ANOTHER ACTION, BOTH OF WHICH STE,M FROM THE SAME TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LOAN WAS ORALLY CONVERTED TO A GIFT BY DECEDENT, CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF A GIFT EXPLAINED.

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

NOTE: THIS CASE WAS REVERSED BY THE US SUPREME COURT ON JANUARY 20, 2022, BASED... PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING...