You are here: / / THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE...
,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank did not submit admissible proof of defendants’ default:

“There is no requirement that a plaintiff in a foreclosure action rely on any particular set of business records to establish a prima facie case, so long as the plaintiff satisfies the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a), and the records themselves actually evince the facts for which they are relied upon” … . Here, neither Joanne Orelli, a senior vice president of Flushing Bank, who verified the complaint, nor Mark Levin, the managing member of the plaintiff, who submitted an affidavit in support of the motion, stated that they had personal knowledge of the default. Moreover, to the extent their knowledge was based on their review of business records, they did not identify what records they relied on and did not attach them to the verified complaint or the affidavit … . Flatbush Two, LLC v Morales, 2021 NY Slip Op 00294, Second Dept 1-20-21

 

You might also like
MARIJUANA AND GRAVITY-KNIFE CONVICTIONS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE “OFFENSES” HAVE BEEN DECRIMINALIZED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER OR THAT PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ASPECT OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK USED THE CORRECT LANGUAGE IN ITS RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE LEGISLATION HAD BEEN AMENDED CHANGING “YOU COULD LOSE YOUR HOME” TO “YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE;” RPAPL 1304 MUST BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION AND DETERMINED ISSUES OF FACT; NO MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT AND NO HEARING WAS HELD (SECOND DEPT).
$1.5 MILLION VERDICT AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF, A 72-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS SHE HAD JUST BOARDED ACCELERATED QUICKLY CAUSING HER TO FALL, INJURING HER HEAD, BACK, NERVES AND KNEE (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Mortgage Company Did Not Negotiate a Loan Modification in Good Faith Without a Hearing, and Could Not, Pursuant to the Contract Clause, Order the Mortgage Company to Enter a Loan Modification Agreement
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BOARD OF WARDENS SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED A FIREFIGHTER FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 209-L (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

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE CODE MADE THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING... THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS...