You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF...
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The judgment after trial was reversed:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the testimony of DeCaro [loan verification officer], who, when shown a copy of the 90-day notice, testified that the notice was printed on October 13, 2011, the same date that appears on the notice, that it was sent to the defendants at the subject property, and that such notice was maintained by Wells Fargo in the regular course of business as the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, DeCaro’s testimony was insufficient to demonstrate that it complied with RPAPL 1304. DeCaro did not testify that she had personal knowledge of the purported mailing or of Wells Fargo’s mailing practices, and did not describe the procedure by which the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed to the defendants by both certified mail and first-class mail … . Although the notice itself stated in bold print, “FIRST CLASS MAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL,” no receipt or corresponding document issued by the United States Postal Service was submitted proving that the notice was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. Moreover, the mailing manifest submitted by the plaintiff failed to establish that the notice was actually mailed to the defendants by both certified mail and first-class mail … .

Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, “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 establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . US Bank N.A. v Pierre, 2020 NY Slip Op 07622, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

You might also like
NO EVIDENCE THE FATAL ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY DRIVING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS; PETITIONER WAS TRAVELLING BELOW THE SPEED LIMIT WHEN HIS CAR STRUCK A POTHOLE, CAUSING A MECHANICAL FAILURE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN CHAIR IN CUSTODIAN’S BREAK ROOM COLLAPSED, SCHOOL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE CHAIR WAS DEEMED NOT TO BE IN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (SECOND DEPT).
Father’s Application for Dismissal of Maternal Aunt’s Custody Petition (After Death of Mother) Granted
911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.
Quantity and Nature of Child Pornography Warranted an Upward Departure in a SORA Proceeding
ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OR ASSIGNEE OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION TO RECORD THE MORTGAGE WAS BROUGHT; THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION (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

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION... THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE DEFENDANT BY WILL UPON THE DEATH OF THE PROPERTY...