You are here: / / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH...
, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice (mailing) requirements of RPAPL 1304 or the notice requirements of RPAPL 1303:

… [T]he letter log submitted by the plaintiff and relied upon by the employee of the plaintiff’s alleged loan servicer in his affidavit failed to establish that the 90-day notice was actually mailed to the defendant by both certified mail and first-class mail … . “‘[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted'” … . None of the other documents submitted by the plaintiff, considered individually or together, including the copies of the 90-day notice letters themselves, provided any information as to whether the notice was sent to the defendant by regular first-class mail … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions did not demonstrate that the notice served upon the defendant complied with the type-size requirements in RPAPL 1303 … .Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Raja, 2022 NY Slip Op 06912, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Once again, the bank in this foreclosure action did not submit sufficient proof of strict compliance with the notice and mailing requirements of RPAPL 1303 or 1304.

 

You might also like
ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.
ALTHOUGH CPLR 8301(A)(6) REFERS TO “REASONABLE EXPENSES OF PRINTING THE PAPERS” FOR AN APPEAL, THE STATUTE IS INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE THE EXPENSES FOR PREPARATION OF A DIGITAL RECORD AND BRIEFS; A PARTY TO WHOM COSTS ARE AWARDED ON APPEAL CAN RECOVER THE COSTS OF CREATING THE DIGITAL RECORD AND BRIEFS (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION” NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CALL PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN TO TESTIFY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COGNITIVE DEFICITS WERE THE RESULT OF A PRIOR STROKE, NOT THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THE DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AND THE $2,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT FOUR DAYS AFTER DISCHARGE.
HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT SIDEWALK SLABS WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; SLIP AND FALL ACTION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.
SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT PRECEDED BY PAT DOWN SEARCH; SEIZURE OF WEAPON FROM JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.