You are here: / / THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED ON HEARSAY;...
, ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED ON HEARSAY; THE SECOND MORTGAGE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO MEET THE REQUIRMENTS OF RPAPL 1351 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report was based upon hearsay and should not have been confirmed. In addition, the proof a second mortgage met the requirements of RPAPL 1351 and 1354 was insufficient:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, the affidavit executed by an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, which was submitted by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the mortgage loan, constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant failed to produce any of the business records upon which she purportedly relied in making her calculations … . Consequently, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … .

… In an action to foreclose a mortgage commenced by a first mortgagee, a second mortgagee may move for a provision in the judgment of foreclosure and sale that any surplus moneys from the foreclosure sale be applied to satisfy the debt owed by the defendant to the second mortgagee (see RPAPL 1351[3]). Such a motion may be granted if “it appears to the satisfaction of the court” that there exists no more than one other mortgage on the subject premises which is “then due” and subordinate only to the plaintiff’s mortgage but is entitled to priority over all other liens and encumbrances other than those described RPAPL 1354(2), and if the motion of the second mortgagee is “made without valid objection of any other party” (RPAPL 1351[3]).

Here, [the] motion papers insufficient, prima facie, to meet the requisite standard (see RPAPL 1351[3]) … . U.S. Rof III Legal Tit. Trust 2015-1 v John, 2020 NY Slip Op 08099, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

You might also like
Criteria for Derivative Neglect Finding Explained (Evidence Insufficient)
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) WAS NOT ADEQUATELY WAIVED IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY NOT CONSIDERED) AND THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT NOTIFIED A TENANT OF THE FORECLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Child Properly Found to Be a Vulnerable Witness and Properly Allowed to Testify Outside the Presence of the Defendant in a Sexual -Offense Trial
ALTHOUGH THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA WHERE CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WAS NOT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA AND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SUCH THAT CLAIMANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT EXTENDED TO THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA (THIRD DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY, WITHOUT EVIDENCE FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO MADE THE DRUG PURCHASES, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DARDEN HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO MANAGEMENT COULD BE INTERPRETED TO CLAIM THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A FALSE TAX RETURN USING DEFENDANT’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND THAT PLAINTIFF STOLE FUNDS FROM THE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DECISION INCLUDES A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION OF THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENDANT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING HE RESIDED AT AN ADDRESS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (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 ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 FOR FAILURE... THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE COULD SUE FOR DECEDENT’S CONSCIOUS PAIN...