You are here: / / PROOF OF POSSESSION OF THE NOTE WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WAS HEARSAY;...
, ,

PROOF OF POSSESSION OF THE NOTE WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WAS HEARSAY; PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action. The assertions that the note was in plaintiff’s possession when the action was commenced were hearsay and were not supported by business records:

… [T]he plaintiff, to establish its standing to commence this mortgage foreclosure action, submitted an affirmation of Amber A. Jurek, a lawyer with Gross Polowy, LLC (hereinafter Gross Polowy), the plaintiff’s counsel. Jurek stated that she was familiar with Gross Polowy’s records and record-keeping practices. Jurek stated that on January 28, 2015, Gross Polowy received the plaintiff’s file, which included the original endorsed note. Gross Polowy commenced this action on the plaintiff’s behalf on February 26, 2015. According to Jurek, “[o]n that date, Gross Polowy, on behalf of Plaintiff, remained in physical possession of the collateral file, including the original endorsed Note dated March 20, 2012.” The plaintiff also submitted the note, which bore an undated endorsement to the plaintiff. However, Jurek did not set forth any facts based on her personal knowledge to support her statement that the note in the plaintiff’s file was the original endorsed note. Further, the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which Jurek relied in her affirmation, and since Jurek did not state that she personally witnessed Gross Polowy receive the plaintiff’s file, her statement is inadmissible hearsay … .

The plaintiff also submitted an affidavit of April H. Hatfield, vice president of loan documentation for the plaintiff. Hatfield stated that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s records and record-keeping practices. Although Hatfield attached the records upon which she relied, she did not state that the plaintiff had possession of the endorsed note at the time the action was commenced. Rather, she relied on Jurek’s affidavit for that fact. Accordingly, Hatfield’s affidavit was also insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s standing.

Finally, the plaintiff did not attach a copy of the note to the complaint when commencing this action. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Bakth, 2020 NY Slip Op 01382, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

You might also like
A METAL PROTRUSION IN A PARKING LOT MEASURING AN INCH OR LESS WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Absent a Private Right of Action Expressly Granted by Statute, An Association Created by Statute Does Not Have the Capacity to Sue
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Ineffective Electronic Filing Can Be Corrected Pursuant to CPLR 2001 After Statute of Limitations Expired
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED RELIGIOUS USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Requests to be Deposed (in China) by Remote Electronic Means and to Use a Video Transcription of the Deposition In Lieu of Testifying at Trial Should Not Have Been Denied

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

DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FAILED TO FILE ITS CURRENT ADDRESS WITH... PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1306; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION...