You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements and did not demonstrate standing:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer. The affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the representative did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notice, and provided no independent proof of the actual mailing … . Since the plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . …

… [T]he plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff is not the original lender, and the note was not endorsed. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted an allonge bearing an undated endorsement in blank, as well as the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer, dated March 31, 2016, who stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note, but who did not attest that the plaintiff possessed the note prior to the commencement of the action, or that she had personal knowledge of such possession. The plaintiff’s submissions therefore failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time of commencement of this action in March 2015 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Ettinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 07759, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

You might also like
Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM CAN BE FILED BY ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE NOTICE WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE FILER, DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT REPRESENTING DECEDENT’S ESTATE AT THE TIME 2ND DEPT.
Licensing Officer Has Broad Discretion Re: Denial of Application for a Pistol Permit
Loan to Grandson Was Not Made In Anticipation of the Need to Qualify for Medical Assistance
DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) NOT APPLICABLE.
A DEFENSE WITNESS HELD OUT AS DISINTERESTED AND OBJECTIVE WAS IN FACT EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT BECAUSE THE CONDUCT DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE AFFIANT AND THE CALCULATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE INFORMATION INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION... DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL WAIVED ANY LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY FILING...