You are here: / / BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS...
, ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the evidence of standing submitted by the bank did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing …. The affidavits of Andrea Kruse, vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s servicer, failed to lay the proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule to support her assertion that the note was transferred to the plaintiff’s custodian prior to commencement of the action and remained in the possession of the plaintiff’s custodian at the time of commencement …. While, in attempting to rely upon the documentary evidence that was annexed to the motion, Kruse averred in her first affidavit that she reviewed the books and records regularly created, maintained, and kept by Wells Fargo, and in her second affidavit that she reviewed the books and records regularly created, maintained, and kept by the plaintiff, she did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s or Wells Fargo’s record-keeping practices and procedures, or that the plaintiff’s records were incorporated into Wells Fargo’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . US Bank Natl. Assn. v Hunte, 2019 NY Slip Op 07311, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

You might also like
SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION.
EXPERT’S OPINION THAT DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK/MANHOLE CAUSED THE SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforced
ALTHOUGH THE TEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE INTEREST ACCRUED DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING; NEW HEARING ORDERED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VICTIM’S EYE INJURY ROSE TO THE LEVEL... THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS...