You are here: / / THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION;...
, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provision of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he record does not reflect that a copy of the endorsed note was attached to the summons and complaint when the action was commenced … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish its status as the holder of the note at the time of commencement of the action … . * * *

The plaintiff failed to establish … it complied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, which required that it provide the defendant with a notice of default prior to demanding payment of the loan in full. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not establish that a notice of default was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the defendant’s “notice address” if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . [Plaintiff] failed to provide proof of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . For the same reason, the plaintiff failed to establish … it sent the defendant the required notice under RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Crosby, 2022 NY Slip Op 00402, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

You might also like
THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.
RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAIVED DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS DISPOSITIVE AND NEVER LITIGATED; THE BANK’S FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE BANK’S ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE WRONG MAILING DATE IN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN AN AMENDED AFFIDAVIT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).
In the Absence of a Showing of Possible Fraud, Income Tax Returns Not Discoverable

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

STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED;... THE TOWN CODE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A PROPERTY INSPECTION BEFORE ISSUANCE...