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
Res Ipsa Locquitur Doctrine Not Available Where Multiple Defendants Did Not Have Concurrent Control Over the Alleged Malpractice, i.e., Leaving Surgical Packing in the Wound
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
WHETHER THE VILLAGE POLICE WERE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR WORK DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IS ARBITRABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT).
A SUBCONTRACTOR CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE WORK SITE ONLY IF IT EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Although the President of a Corporation Was Also a Member of Defendant Limited Liability Company, the Corporation and Limited Liability Were Not Shown to Be “United in Interest” Such that the “Relation-Back” Doctrine Would Apply to Allow Adding the Corporation as a Defendant After the Statute of Limitations Had Run
Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game

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

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...