You are here: / / THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE...
, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because plaintiff’s standing, defendants’ default, and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 were not proven. The Second Department explained the proof requirements for each:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show that the note was properly endorsed and thus validly transferred to it … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff also failed to submit admissible evidence of the defendants’ default in making the mortgage payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage … . * * *

The plaintiff also failed to proffer evidence establishing its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. U.S. Bank N.A. v Moulton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00171, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
FOUNDATION FOR OPINION EVIDENCE OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S FIELD WAS NOT LAID, DEFENDANT SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S DNA WAS FOUND ON THE WEAPON USED IN THE SHOOTING REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Shareholder’s Derivative Action and Shareholder’s Action to Inspect Corporate Books Explained
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION. PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BANK ACCEPTED PAYMENTS IN LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT AFTER THE ALLEGED DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)
Riser In Church Was Not an Actionable Condition

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

JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION... AMENDMENT TO SOCIAL SERVICES LAW EXTENDING SUBSIDIES FOR CHILDREN CARED FOR...