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
EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK DEFECT DEVELOPED OVER TIME DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DEFECT AROSE UPON INSTALLATION, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED THE TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PRIVITY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT ARCHITECT; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM JAIL PURSUANT TO CPL 180.80 BUT WAS KEPT INCARCERATED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2 1/2 MONTHS; PLAINTIFF’S FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION ARISING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
“Single Motion Rule” Barred Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)

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...