The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s summary judgment motion in this reverse mortgage foreclosure proceeding should not have been granted. The affidavit submitted to prove standing, default and notice was not accompanied by the relevant business records, rendering the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:
CIT Bank [plaintiff] submitted an affidavit of its assistant secretary, Elizabeth Birk, who, upon review of the business records maintained by CIT Bank, averred that CIT Bank was the “holder of the instrument of indebtedness at the time this action was commenced,” the borrower was “in default,” the “mortgage debt remains unpaid,” and a default notice “was thereafter duly sent.” However, since Birk failed to attach or otherwise incorporate any of CIT Bank’s business records to her affidavit, her assertions regarding the contents of such business records constituted inadmissible hearsay … . CIT Bank, N.A. v Fernandez, 2022 NY Slip Op 01764, Second Dept 3-16-22
Similar issue (no business records attached to the bank’s affidavit demonstrating defendant’s default) and result in JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v Newton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01777, Second Dept 3-16-22
Practice Point: An affidavit submitted in support of summary judgment which purports to demonstrate what business records say, but which is not accompanied by those business records, in inadmissible hearsay.