You are here: / / THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT...
, , ,

THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT’S DETERMINATION THE BANK HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the failure to identify and attach the documents demonstrating the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action rendered the bank’s affidavit inadmissible hearsay. The court noted that Supreme Court’s determination the bank had complied with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304 was the law of the case precluding reconsideration of the issue pursuant to defendants’ cross motion:

The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Richard L. Penno, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Based upon his review of Wells Fargo’s books and records concerning the defendants’ loan, Penno attested to the defendants’ default in payment. However, Penno did not identify the records he relied upon in order to attest to the defendants’ default and did not attach them to his affidavit … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . Thus, Penno’s assertions as to the contents of Wells Fargo’s servicing records were inadmissible … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge … . …

… [C]ontrary to the defendants’ … contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement. The plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement were both considered and decided in the plaintiff’s favor on its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, while it is true that a defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time … , the doctrine of law of the case precluded the court from reconsidering those issues on the defendants’ cross motion … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ramanababu, 2022 NY Slip Op 01199, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

You might also like
PETITION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CROSSWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT STORE DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO MOP UP RAIN WATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE SPECIFIC OR MAXIMUM PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact Re: Whether a Deed Was Forged and Whether a Will Was Duly Executed
PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST, WAS ASSAULTED BY AN AUTISTIC STUDENT; THE NEGLIGENT-PARENTAL-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STUDENT’S PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, A FORMER ASS’T DA, DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING WITH THE JUDGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
​THE BUYER WAS NOTIFED TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS REAL ESTATE DEAL AND WAS GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO CLOSE; THEREFORE THE BUYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (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

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304... THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE...