You are here: / / THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSBILE...
,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSBILE HEARSAY AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed because it was based on inadmissible hearsay:

… [T]he affidavit of an assistant vice president of Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, “constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records he purportedly relied upon in making his calculations” … . Thus, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Isom, 2021 NY Slip Op 00203, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

You might also like
CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Fact Deed Not Recorded Did Not Rebut Presumption of Delivery and Acceptance of Deed​
Evidence of General Inspection Practices, As Opposed to the Specific Inspection and Cleaning Practices Re: Where the Plaintiff Slipped and Fell, Insufficient to Entitle Defendant to Summary Judgment
Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained/Appellate Review Powers Re: a Bench Trial Described
PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE INSURER.
Filing Petition Four Hours Late Was Fatal Defect
EXTENSIONS OF NONCONFORMING USE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

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 WAS ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER A THEORY OF BURGLARY WITH WHICH... THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION OF A SHOTGUN AND SHOTGUN...