You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and that the required notice of default was in fact mailed to the defendants by first-class mail, or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage as a condition precedent to foreclosure … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Buah, 2020 NY Slip Op 05722, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

You might also like
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not Meet Criteria for Statutory Path to Lawful Permanent Residency in US
RETROACTIVE IMPOSTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SEX OFFENDER VICTIM FEE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS; $2500 PENALTY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game
DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Show-Up Identification Should Have Been Suppressed—Defendant Was Only Person In the Street, Was In Hand-Cuffs, and Was Surrounded by Police

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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE... ALTHOUGH VACATING A JUDGMENT STEMMING FROM A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT MUST ORDINARILY...