You are here: / / THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE...
, ,

THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE THE BANK OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined (1) the bank was still required to provide the RPAPL1304 notice despite the application for a loan modification, and (2) the proof of mailing the notice was insufficient. The court noted that proof of mailing submitted for the first time in reply cannot be considered as part of the bank’s prima facie case:

When the instant action was commenced, RPAPL 1304(3) provided: “The ninety day period specified in the notice[ ] contained in [RPAPL 1304(1)] shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, if the borrower has filed [an application for the adjustment of debts of the borrower or an order for relief from the payment of debts], or if the borrower no longer occupies the residence as the borrower’s principal dwelling” … . A loan modification was not an adjustment of debts within the meaning of the version of RPAPL 1304(3) then in effect and, in any event, a lender was relieved only from the requirement to provide notice within the “ninety day period” (RPAPL 1304[3]), not from the requirement to provide the notice specified in RPAPL 1304(1) … . …

US Bank failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Ubinas stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a certified mail 20-digit barcode, and of an envelope bearing a first-class mail postage stamp, US Bank failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually occurred. There is no copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute. Further, while Ubinas attested that she had personal knowledge of the record-making practices of Ocwen, and that the 90-day notice was sent in compliance with RPAPL 1304, she did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendant on behalf of Ocwen. On appeal, US Bank relies upon the signed certified mail return receipt submitted in reply. The moving party, however, cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Hammer, 2021 NY Slip Op 01439, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

You might also like
RABBINICAL COURT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF ARBITRAL IMMUNITY.
FAMILY COURT HELD A HEARING IN THE MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING BUT DID NOT STATE IN ITS DECISION THE FACTS RELIED UPON TO DENY THE PETITION; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE, REVERSED FAMILY COURT, AND GRANTED MOTHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
EXPOSED TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS. ​
THE MEANING OF ‘GROSS EARNED INCOME’ IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AFFECTED THE CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT; THE TERM WAS AMBIGUOUS REQUIRING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE SENTENCING JUDGE IMPROPERLY SPECULATED AND CONSIDERED UNCHARGED CRIMES; SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Court Has the Discretion to Deny a Motion to Change Venue Where the Statutory Time-Limits for the Demand and Motion Are Not Met—Discretion Not Abused Here
LACK OF SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT’S FALL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGING IN AGE-APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TAKING TURNS JUMPING OVER A KNEE-HIGH FENCE WHEN SHE FELL AND WAS INJURED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (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

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS... THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE...