You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 DID NOT APPLY AND DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 did not apply and did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action. The bank did not show that the underlying loan was not a “home loan,” and the proof of mailing of the notice was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show, prima facie, that the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice requirement was inapplicable because the loan was not a “home loan” … .​

RPAPL 1304 requires the 90-day notice to be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower (see RPAPL 1304[2]). “By requiring the lender or mortgage loan servicer to send the RPAPL 1304 notice by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail, the Legislature implicitly provided the means for the plaintiff to demonstrate its compliance with the statute, i.e., by proof of the requisite mailing, which can be established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, 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'” … .

Here, 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 an individual with personal knowledge of that procedure. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Sadique, 2019 NY Slip Op 09054, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

You might also like
SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR’S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO.
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AIRWAY CLEANERS AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES IN THIS AIRPORT SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT ENTIRELY DISPLACE AMERICAN AIRLINES’ DUTY TO KEEP THE BATHROOM SAFE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACT COULD NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AIRWAY CLEANERS’ LIABILTY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL.
Material Misrepresentation Justified Rescission of Policy
Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy
THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD, REINSTATING NURSING HOME EMPLOYEES WHO WERE FIRED AND INDICTED FOR ALLEGEDLY IGNORING A RESIDENT IN RESPIRATORY DISTRESS, VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Facts, Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Father’s Parental Rights—No Showing that Termination Would Increase Likelihood of Adoption

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

THE INSURER IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT MEET ITS HEAVY BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE... DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT...