You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK, AT TRIAL, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK, AT TRIAL, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the plaintiff’s verdict in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate (at trial) that it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“‘In reviewing a determination . . . after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses'” … . At the nonjury trial, the plaintiff relied upon the testimony of its sole witness, who testified as to the standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff’s prior and present loan servicer, but did not and could not attest to the practices and procedures of Walz Group, a third-party entity that was hired to undertake the requisite service of the notices on the defendants in accordance with the requirements of the mortgage agreement and RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff’s witness expressly testified that she did not have familiarity with Walz Group’s mailing practices “outside of their communications with” the loan servicer. In addition, the witness attested that she never mailed anything through Walz Group, was never employed by Walz Group, and was never trained by Walz Group in their procedures for mailing notices. Further, she testified that she could not say if Walz Group mailed the notices by first-class mail.

Thus, since the plaintiff’s sole witness did not have “knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notice[s]” … , and the business records that were submitted in evidence failed to show that the requisite first-class mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices or the notices of default were actually made to the defendants or that the default notices were actually delivered to their “notice address,” the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bucicchia, 2021 NY Slip Op 02132, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

You might also like
Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF CROSSED INTO DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING LANE TO PASS A MAIL TRUCK, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT REACTED REASONABLY TO AN EMERGENCY; TWO OTHER CARS HAD ENTERED DEFENDANT’S LANE TO GO AROUND THE TRUCK JUST BEFORE THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
Lessee Who Has Authority to Control the Work Is Liable Under the Labor Law
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE LATE SERVICE AND DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CARDBOARD ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY, AS THE OWNER OF THE MARINA WITH RIPARIAN RIGHTS, WAS ENTITLED TO EJECT DEFENDANTS WHO WERE USING AN INOPERABLE VESSEL AS A HOUSEBOAT DOCKED AT THE MARINA (SECOND DEPT).
Collision With Another Swimmer Not Actionable/Primary Assumption of Risk

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

AFTER THE CITY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE... THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT UPON FILING A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION...