You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The business records upon which the calculations in the referee’s report were based were not produced:

… ]T]he Supreme Court should have denied those branches of JPMorgan’s motion which were to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “[T]he referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records” … . Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Mahone, 2022 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the business records upon which the calculations in the referee’s report are based are not produced, Supreme Court should not confirm the report.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE SEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION WHICH THE JUDGE IMPOSED SUA SPONTE, DESIGNATION DELETED (SECOND DEPT).
Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED.
Question of Fact Whether Licensed Driver Properly Supervised Young Driver with a Learner’s Permit
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY THE POLICE DEFENDANTS, COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S VEHICLE; THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE OMISSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (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

WHERE CONVICTIONS UNDER MULITPLE INDICTMENTS COME UP FOR REVIEW IN THE SAME... THE EVIDENCE OF “WITNESS ELIMINATION MURDER” WAS INSUFFICIENT; THERE...