You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE/MAILING REQUIREMENTS...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE/MAILING REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS, THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have confirmed the Referee’s report. The plaintiff failed to submit any evidence at the hearing of compliance with the mailing requirement of CPLR 308(2) and, thus, failed to demonstrate that personal jurisdiction had been obtained over the defendants … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Puretz, 2019 NY Slip Op 05958, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

You might also like
PROOF OF A REGULAR SNOW REMOVAL ROUTINE IS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
Overriding Village Legislative Cap on Number of Taxicab Licenses Not a Proper Subject of Mandamus Action—Applicability of Mandamus Explained
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS.
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Trace the Allegedly Separate Funds Used for the Purchase of Property During the Marriage Allows the Court to Treat the Property as Marital
THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD.
Cross-Examination About Omission from Witness’ Statement to Police Should Have Been Allowed

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

FIBER OPTIC CABLES AND ENCLOSURES ARE TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL)... DEFENDANT’S PROBATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED ABSENT A HEARING OR...