You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT...
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it met the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and the bank did not demonstrate it had standing the bring the action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of first-class mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Sherry Benight, who was employed as a document control officer for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), which began servicing the subject loan on the plaintiff’s behalf on July 15, 2015, as well as copies of the purported notices, dated July 22, 2013. Although one of the notices contained a first-class mail 10-digit barcode, the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the letter was actually sent by first-class mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. In her affidavit, Benight stated that she could confirm that the notice was sent to the defendant on July 22, 2013. However, Benight did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing. Further, since she did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bank of America, N.A., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . To the extent that Benight relied upon a screenshot of a TrackRight Transaction Report, she failed to establish how or when the report was created, that it was made in the regular course of business, or that it was created soon after the notices were purportedly mailed to the defendant … . …

The plaintiff also attempted to establish standing through the submission of Benight’s affidavit, but this also was insufficient. Benight asserted that the original note was delivered to the plaintiff on September 7, 2004, and that the plaintiff had since remained in possession of the note. Benight, however, did not have personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s receipt of the note, did not attest that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, and also did not submit any admissible business records to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time this action was commenced … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Porfert, 2020 NY Slip Op 06083, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE DID NOT HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATED PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 730; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, AN HVAC WORKER, LEANED ON A PIPE RAILING AS HE WAITED FOR AN ELEVATOR TO TAKE HIM TO THE FLOOR WHERE HIS WORK SITE WAS; THE PIPE RAILING GAVE WAY AND PLAINTFF FELL FOUR OR FIVE FEET TO A CONCRETE SLAB; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE.
THE “PARTICULARITY” PLEADING-REQUIREMENTS FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DO NOT APPLY TO CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DIVORCE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO PAY THE CHILDREN’S COLLEGE EXPENSES FOR FOUR YEARS AND DID NOT MENTION AN AGE CUT-OFF; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATION CEASED AT AGE 21 (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

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS ASSAULT... ALTHOUGH INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DISCLAIMER...