You are here: / / THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS...
,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not submit proof of compliance with the filing requirements of RPAPL 1306:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1306, lenders “shall file with the superintendent of financial services . . . within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by [RPAPL 1304]” a form containing certain information regarding the borrower and the mortgage (RPAPL 1306[1]; see RPAPL 1306[2]). RPAPL 1306(1) further states that “[a]ny complaint served in [an action] initiated pursuant to [RPAPL article 13] shall contain, as a condition precedent to such [action], an affirmative allegation that at the time the [action] is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section.”

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of compliance with RPAPL 1306. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lyon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07060, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

You might also like
NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE PROPERLY DENIED; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SERVICES BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO TIE OFF HIS LANYARD, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY; PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON THE SCAFFOLD BROKE; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Decision Whether to Submit a Lesser Included Offense to the Jury Is for the Attorney, Not the Defendant, to Make—Failure to Grant the Attorney’s Request (Because the Defendant Objected) Reversible Error
Purported Deed Was Actually an Usurious Mortgage—All Related Transfers and Encumbrances Void
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION WAS REQUIRED; ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR MUCH OF THE TIME SINCE THE CHILD WAS BORN, FATHER DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHILD OR MAKE ANY EFFORT TO GAIN PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE CHILD DURING THE PERIODS HE WAS NOT INCARCERATED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER A LADDER WAS REQUIRED FOR PLAINTIFF’S WORK MANDATED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; RE: THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT-OWNER HAD A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LADDER-SAFETY PROVISIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, THE OWNER’S LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE (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

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE... IN DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION AND GRANTING MOTHER’S MOTION TO...