You are here: / / THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE...
, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE COMPLIED WITH; SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were not demonstrated and, therefore, the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing by either certified mail or first-class mail, “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” … , it failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy its prima facie burden with respect to RPAPL 1304, those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants, to strike their answer, and for an order of reference should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . US Bank N.A. v McQueen, 2020 NY Slip Op 07423, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

You might also like
Arbitrator’s Award Should Not Have Been Vacated—No Clear and Convincing Evidence of Arbitrator’s Bias or Misconduct or that the Arbitrator Exceeded His Power
NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO STRICT LIABILITY, THEORY DID NOT APPLY TO INJURY FROM A HORSE WHICH WAS STARTLED WHEN THREE HORSES ESCAPED FROM A PADDOCK AND GALLOPED TOWARD THE BARN WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS GROOMING THE HORSE WHICH INJURED HER (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A LOAN PAYABLE UPON DEMAND ACCRUES WHEN THE LOAN IS MADE.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT SUBMITTED.
THE BANK WHICH COMMENCED THE 2006 FORECLOSURE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING IN 2006; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
Testimony of Defense Expert About Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications Properly Precluded/Criteria for Such Testimony Explained

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 ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL... THE QUI TAM COMPLAINT ALLEGING INSURERS FAILED TO ACCURATELY REPORT UNCLAIMED...