You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S BARE DENIAL OF THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE...
, ,

DEFENDANT’S BARE DENIAL OF THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s bare denial of the receipt of notice of the foreclosure action was not a sufficient basis for granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment:

The bare denial by the defendant … of receipt of a notice of default, required to be served by the terms of the mortgage, and a notice required by RPAPL 1304 is insufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Mendick, 2020 NY Slip Op 00262, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

You might also like
​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE OUT–OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).
Insured Was Entitled to Settle with Tortfeasor 30 Days After Insured’s Notification of His Insurer of the Settlement Offer—Although Insurer Sent a Letter Responding to the Notification, It Was Sent to the Wrong Address and the Insured Never Received It
28-Hours Between Arrest and Arraignment Okay
Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)
Defendant Estopped from Claiming He Was Not Properly Served Because He Never Notified DMV of His Change of Address
“Special Errand” Exception to the “Going and Coming” Rule Applied—Workers’ Compensation Claim Is Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT TRADITIONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS “IMPRACTICABLE;” SERVICE BY PUBLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF COMMERCIAL TENANT DID NOT PROVE IT GAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF...