You are here: / / DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT...
,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 RE: WHETHER THE BANK ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action were entitled to a hearing on whether plaintiff bank engaged in settlement negotiations in good faith:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ cross motion for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff negotiated in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f). CPLR 3408 requires the parties in a residential foreclosure action to attend settlement conferences at an early stage of the litigation, at which they must “negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution” … . … [T]he circumstances surrounding its servicer’s handling of the first two loan modification applications are “relevant in the overall context of the parties’ relationship and the negotiations between them,” and thus, are relevant to the good faith inquiry … . …[D]efendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff “engaged in dilatory conduct by making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided”… . Investors Bank v Brooks, 2022 NY Slip Op 07224, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Defendants submitted evidence the bank in this foreclosure action did not engage in settlement negotiations pursuant to CPLR 3408 in good faith. Supreme Court should have held a hearing.

 

You might also like
ABSENT SELF-INTEREST OR SELF-DEALING, AN ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE LIABLE TO A THIRD PERSON FOR INDUCING THE CLIENT TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH THAT THIRD PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY MADE, RESCISSION OF THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS JUSTIFIED.
FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED.
THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE ARM AND FOOT PEDAL OF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE AT DEFENDANT’S GYM BROKE OFF; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (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

THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT... THE SO-ORDERED STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RENDERED THE RELATED CAUSE OF...