You are here: / / NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT PROVEN; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION...
, ,

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT PROVEN; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements was deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any evidence of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendant pursuant to the terms of RPAPL 1304 … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the representative did not provide evidence “of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … , and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Herzberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

You might also like
THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH USED DEFENDANT’S ARREST PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF THE RELATED IDENTIFICATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Motion for Resentencing Under CPL 440.46 (Drug Reform Law) Properly Denied
FATHER WAS 40 MINUTES LATE FOR A HEARING, FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CORD WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL MAY HAVE BEEN OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE VIDEO SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED SO IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL ON ONE COUNT (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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S REPEATED FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE CONTINUATION OF... THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE...