You are here: / / PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT;...
,

PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE 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. The proof of the notice required by RPAPL 1304 was insufficient:

Notice must be sent both “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” (RPAPL 1304[2]). “‘[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “Proof of the requisite mailing is established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … .

… [The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit from a witness who attested to having personal knowledge of either the actual mailing or “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the records submitted with the plaintiff’s motion did not establish as a matter of law that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed. A copy of a letter and envelope addressed to the defendant, each bearing a 20-digit number, was insufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the certified mailing actually occurred … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence substantiating the assertions that a second copy of the notice was mailed to the defendant by regular first-class mail, as required by the statute … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Feeney, 2020 NY Slip Op 06753, Second Dept 11-18-20

Similar issues and result in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Gold, 2020 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON THE BASKETBALL COURT WHICH WAS WET WITH CONDENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE RECURRING CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A RAZOR BLADE PARTIALLY WRAPPED IN TAPE WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Allegations of Abuse of a Student by a School Bus Monitor Raised Questions of Fact Re: Negligent Supervision of the Student, Negligent Supervision and Training of the Monitor, and Whether the Monitor Was Acting Within the Scope of Her Employment
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A RETAINER AGREEMENT TO DEMONSTRATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANTS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Claimed Gestation Period of 303 Days Requires Reliable Medical Evidence It Is Scientifically Possible/Acknowledgment of Paternity by Another Did Not Preclude Petitioner from Bringing His Paternity Action
PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
NEITHER A CERTIFICATION ORDER NOR A STIPULATION EXTENDING THE DATE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 90-DAY NOTICE; THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WAS INVALID; THE MOTION TO RESTORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS RESPONSIBLE... EVEN IF THE OFFICER WERE WRONG ABOUT WHETHER A NON-FUNCTIONING CENTER BRAKE...