You are here: / / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE...
,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action:

“Among other things, a plaintiff can establish a default by submission of an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or other evidence in admissible form”… . Although Smith [plaintiff’s vice president] averred that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, Smith’s purported knowledge of the alleged default was based upon her review of unidentified business records, which she failed to attach to her affidavit … . Thus, Smith’s assertions regarding the defendants’ alleged default constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gross, 2022 NY Slip Op 00902, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER PLYWOOD FELL WHILE HOISTED OR DURING INSTALLATION.
PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.
DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ONE-YEAR-AND-NINETY-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR A SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-I(1)(C) IS SUBJECT TO THE INFANCY TOLL IN CPLR 208 (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL; DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT; LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
APPEAL HELD AND MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUESTING AN AWARD OF... ALTHOUGH THE INSURER DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM UNTIL 23 MONTHS AFTER...