You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff (CV) did not provide the proof required by Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The version of RPAPL 1304(2) as it existed at the time this action was commenced, provided that, “[t]he notices required by this section shall contain a current list of at least five housing counseling agencies that serve the region where the borrower resides from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services” …

… CV failed to submit evidence to demonstrate that the 90-day notices contained either five housing agencies that served the region where the defendants resided or were from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services. …

Additionally, CV did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that the defendants were properly served pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, CV relied upon the affidavit of Matthew W. Regan, its executive vice president, who averred that 90-day notices were sent in accordance with the statute. In his affidavit, Regan referenced copies of 90-day notices, which, however, did not bear any postmark. Moreover, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices . . . standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . Also, Regan’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the required notices were sent in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as Regan did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notices, and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . CV XXVIII, LLC v Trippiedi, 2020 NY Slip Op 05721, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

You might also like
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; RISK-ASSESSMENT REVERSED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE, CORPORATE OFFICERS PROPERLY SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES (SECOND DEPT).
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.
THE PETITION BROUGHT BY THE EXECUTOR PURSUANT TO SCPA 2103 SOUGHT DISCOVERY AND THE TURNOVER OF ANNUITY FUNDS WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO APPELLANT; THE SCPA 21O3 ACTION IS LIKE AN ACTION FOR CONVERSION OR REPLEVIN AND HAS A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; HERE THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE ANSWERS TO ASSERT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PUBLIC POLICY PRECLUDED RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT OVERPAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURED, WHO WAS SEEKING UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS, DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY HER INSURER OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIAL PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD THE DOWN PAYMENT ON THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS RENDERED THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION UNENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Who Objected to the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Was Entitled to a Hearing Even Though the Restitution-Amount Was (Apparently) Specified in the Plea Agreement

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

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT AFTER IT WAS DEEMED A DEFENSE... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL...