You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL...
, ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, 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’s (PennyMac’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A]lthough Somarriba and Carras-Gomez “stated in [their] affidavit[s] that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened” … . Instead, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of bulk mailing, which did not identify any particular mailing, and two internal reports generated by the plaintiff, which appear to demonstrate that some unidentified pieces of mail were sent to the borrower’s address … . Additionally, no foundation was laid for the admission of these business records, as neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez attested that they had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, or that the plaintiff’s records were incorporated into PennyMac’s own records or routinely relied upon by PennyMac in its business … . Finally, the plaintiff failed, alternatively, to provide proof of actual mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice, to provide 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” … . Neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez averred that they had personal knowledge of any such standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff. PennyMac Corp. v Khan, 2019 NY Slip Op 09278, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​
RECORDS KEPT BY A VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE CORPORATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).
The Prejudicial Effect of the Result of the Portable Breath Test (PBT) Outweighed Its Probative Value—New Trial Ordered
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE CONFUSION NOT A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE FOR BANK ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO ATTEND A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; THE REFEREE RELIED ON HEARSAY AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THE CPLR (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

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED PLAINTIFF WIFE $25,000 AS AN INTEREST IN HER HUSBAND’S... PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD...