You are here: / / THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION...
, ,

THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements in the mortgage:

… Supreme Court improperly determined that the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it complied with the notice requirement of paragraph 22 of the mortgage. Statements in Johnson’s [plaintiff’s vice president’s] affidavit, “‘which asserted that the notice of default was sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage, [were] unsubstantiated and conclusory and . . . , even when considered together with the copy of the notice of default, failed to show that the required notice was in fact mailed by first class mail or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, as required by the subject mortgage'” … . Johnson did not purport to have personal knowledge of the mailing of the default notice or any familiarity with the plaintiff’s mailing practices … . Ditech Fin., LLC v Naidu, 2021 NY Slip Op 05320, Second Dept 10-7-21

 

You might also like
Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book
DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS, RENDERING IT CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROOF OF AN UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSE RELIED UPON FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS INSUFFICIENT; LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO (SECOND DEPT).
New York Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody and Visitation Matters Due to Child’s Substantial Contacts with California
The Unjustified Denial of Defense Counsel’s Request to Withdraw a Peremptory Challenge Was, Under the Facts, Subject to a Harmless Error Analysis
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE PETITION RE THE CHILD’S SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER REUNITING THE CHILD WITH MOTHER WAS NOT VIABLE DUE TO NEGLECT OR ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT).
NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether City Created Hazardous Condition

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

A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH REGISTERS TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CONSENTS TO... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND...