You are here: / / THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT...
, , ,

THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was deficient because the foundation for the admission of business records was not laid:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … an affidavit of an employee of its current mortgage loan servicer, along with copies of the 90-day notice, which was generated by the plaintiff’s prior loan servicer, along with alleged proof of mailing, which was also generated by the prior loan servicer. The affiant averred … that the current mortgage loan servicer is responsible for maintaining the books and records pertaining to the subject mortgage, “including, but not limited to, the account ledgers, and prior servicer’s records.” However, the affiant did not aver to her familiarity with the prior loan servicer’s business practices and procedures, or that the prior loan servicer’s records were incorporated into the current loan servicer’s records. Thus, the plaintiff’s moving affidavit failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a) … , and the prior loan servicer’s records, including the 90-day notice, were not admissible … . “Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the notice provision of RPAPL 1304” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Basta, 2022 NY Slip Op 02971, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, at the summary judgment stage, even if business records demonstrating the bank’s compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 are submitted, they are not admissible unless a proper foundation (CPLR 4518(a)) is laid in the accompanying affidavit.

 

You might also like
A SENTENCE CANNOT BE SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE PURSUANT TO A CPL 440.20 MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUPREME COURT’S CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER; THE APPELLATE COURT HAD SENT THE MATTER BACK FOR RESENTENCING AFTER FINDING PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CRIME, I.E., THE SHOOTING OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN DEFENDANTS’ BUILDING, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEABLE, THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DOOR SECURITY WAS DEFICIENT AND THEREFORE WAS A CONCURRENT FACTOR IN THE SHOOTING (SECOND DEPT).
Even Though the Appeal Had Been Rendered Moot, It Was Appropriate for the Appellate Court to Vacate the Underlying Order
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE RETURNS THE CASE TO THE PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE DISCOVERY STAGE, NO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE TRIAL CALENDAR; THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF ISSUE, CITING LAW OFFICE FAILURE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
Anonymous 911 Call Admitted Under Excited Utterance and Present Sense Impression Hearsay Exceptions

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 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE... DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE...