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
ONCE PLAINTIFF RELEASED THE MORTGAGE UPON PAYMENT OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTY BY AMENDING THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT.
Defendant-Attorney Can Seek Contribution from Succeeding Attorney Who Contributed to Plaintiff’s Damages
“Concerted Action Liability” Causes of Action Dismissed/No Evidence Media Defendants Conspired with the Police to Use Excessive Force During Filmed Execution of Search Warrant
PLAINTIFF SERVED THE COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 27, 2018; DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS REJECTED, ON JANUARY 9, 2019; DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS “THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER;” THAT EXCUSE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE OUT–OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Justified and Improperly Imposed
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT; THERFORE WHETHER DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE INQUEST; THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS UNCERTAIN DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FAILURE TO AWARD 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

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