You are here: / / BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; BANK’S MOTION FOR...
,

BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not prove compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1303:

“Proper service of the notice required by RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and it is the plaintiff’s burden to show compliance with that statute” … .

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the process server’s affidavit indicating that a notice was served with the summons and complaint. However, the plaintiff did not submit a copy of the RPAPL 1303 notice allegedly served, and the process server made no averments that the notice served complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1303 concerning content and form. The plaintiff, therefore, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1303 … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Hart, 2020 NY Slip Op 03217, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

You might also like
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT CORPORATION ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ACTION IN TIME TO DEFEND (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO INFORM DEFENDANTS’ FORMER EMPLOYEES THAT COUNSEL’S INTERESTS ARE ADVERSE TO THEIRS AND TO RECOMMEND THE FORMER EMPLOYEES RETAIN COUNSEL BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Subcontractor Which Supervised Plaintiff’s Work Was An Agent for the General Contractor
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER WHO ALLEGEDLY INJURED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A SUBCONTRACTOR WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLING THEM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE SHOULD BE OFFERED ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS AN ELEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE; THE ISSUE SURVIVED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM FOIL REQUESTS (SECOND DEPT).
Town Board Should Not Have Considered the Environmental Impact of Only One Small Part of a Revitalization Project, as Opposed to the Entire Revitalization Project, without Explaining the Reasons for Limiting Its Review In Accordance with the Requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act

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

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS NOT WARRANTED... DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN...