You are here: / / THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE...
, ,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANKS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action and compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. Although the employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer stated in her affidavit, which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note, she never stated that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced … . Further, the plaintiff failed to establish that the note was attached to the complaint at the time of the commencement of the action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 because the employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, in her affidavit, failed to assert personal knowledge of the purported mailing or make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures in order to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Palacio, 2020 NY Slip Op 05480, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

You might also like
Height Differential Open and Obvious
GENERAL PRAYER FOR RELIEF WILL NOT JUSTIFY RELIEF DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION, REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE USED TO ADVANCE NEW ARGUMENTS.
BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant, In Its Summary Judgment Motion, Properly Addressed Only the Theory of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Which Was Alleged in the Pleadings
PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-H, IT WAS THE MUNICIPALITY’S, NOT THE CLAIMANT’S, OBLIGATION TO RESCHEDULE THE 50-H EXAMINATION AFTER CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL WITHDREW; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE EXAMINATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT). ​
SECOND DEPARTMENT TO JUDGES: DON’T DISMISS A COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWALK/CURB SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION OR CAUSE THE CONDITION BY SPECIAL USE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE FURTHER RESTRICTED DISCOVERY FOR THE PROTECTION OF... AFTER OBTAINING AN UNPAID JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY SUED...