You are here: / / THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST...
,

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WAS DONE USING THE METHOD REQUIRED BY THE NOTE AND THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed. There was no evidence the interest calculation was done in the manner required by the note and the relevant business records were not submitted:

… Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the interest on the loan was calculated using the method set forth in the note, and the referee’s computations, including the amount due and owing and payments for taxes, insurance, and other advances, were premised upon unproduced business records … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Singh, 2022 NY Slip Op 03221, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, the interest must be calculated using the method required by the note, and any relevant business records must be produced in order to warrant confirmation of the referee’s report.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 OR CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH USED DEFENDANT’S ARREST PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF THE RELATED IDENTIFICATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND THE EXCUSE OFFERED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES SENT AND RECEIVED OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (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

PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL FACTS DOCTRINE, THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR... ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE...