You are here: / / THE COMPUTATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION...
,

THE COMPUTATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed because computations were based on business records which were not produced:

The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the referee’s computations as to escrow disbursements and advancements and property inspection fees were premised upon unproduced business records … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Bracco, 2021 NY Slip Op 06839, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

You might also like
A “CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED” AFFIDAVIT DENYING DEFENDANT RESIDED AT THE ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT.
MOTION TO RENEW BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE PROPERLY GRANTED; CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE.
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2) (DWI) IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2-A) (AGGRAVATED DWI) (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL BEFORE ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO RECORDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Preemption by Martin Act
HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED.

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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S... PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK OF PLAYING CRICKET ON A COURT...