You are here: / / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE...
, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the loan in question in this foreclosure proceeding was a “home loan” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 and therefore the notice requirements of RPAPL 13O4 applied. The bank argued the loan was not a “home loan” because the defendant no longer lived on the property. The Second Department held that, because the defendant had moved, the 90-day-notice required by RPAPL 1304 did not apply, but the bank was still obligated to notify the defendants of the foreclosure action. Because the bank did not submit sufficient proof of compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304, the bank’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

… [W]hile finding, pursuant to RPAPL 1304(3), that “[g]iven that Defendant no longer occupies the residence as his principal dwelling place, the ninety-day period specified in the notice is inapplicable,” the Supreme Court properly concluded that “Defendant’s loan qualified as a ‘home loan’ under RPAPL § 1304(5) due to the fact that the home was Defendant’s primary residence from the time of the loan until he was transferred to California in 2011,” and that, “[t]herefore, Plaintiff needed to serve statutory notice pursuant to RPAPL § 1304 on Defendant by first class mail and certified mail.” …

To establish its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of its employee, Takesha Brown, a document execution specialist. Although Brown stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, she did not attest to having personal knowledge of the mailing, and the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the notices were actually mailed to the defendant … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to provide “proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jong Sim, 2021 NY Slip Op 04979, Second Dept 9-15-21

 

You might also like
ONE YEAR SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE SHOCKED ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR IMPOSITION OF A 60 DAY SUSPENSION (SECOND DEPT).
Emergency Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant Bus Company
DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO–REPAIR AN ELEVATOR; ISSUE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE; THE PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO LEAD IN AN APARTMENT OWNED BY THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA), AN ENTITY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY; THEREFORE THE UNDERLYING CLAIM WAS PATENTLY MERITLESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES DID NOT SUPPORT THE UNDERWRITER’S CLAIM THAT THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S HEART CONDITION; THEREFORE THE INSURANCE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION (SECOND DEPT).
Hearing Required to Determine If Complaint Properly Served
SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (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

NEITHER PARTY WAS THE “PREVAILING PARTY” IN THIS DISPUTE OVER THE... APPELLATE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE ARGUED THAT COUNTY COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER A...