You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL...
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment (after a non-jury trial) of foreclosure and sale, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1303:

RPAPL 1303 requires that a notice titled “Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure” be delivered to the mortgagor along with the summons and complaint in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one- to four-family dwellings … . “The statute mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type” … . “Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and noncompliance mandates dismissal of the complaint” … . The foreclosing party bears the burden of establishing compliance with RPAPL 1303 … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence at trial establishing that it complied with the specific requirements of RPAPL 1303, or that it delivered such notice to Nodumehlezi [defendant] at all. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court’s reliance, in a posttrial decision, on documents that had been previously e-filed to establish the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1303 was improper, since Nodumehlezi had no opportunity to rebut the previously filed affidavit of service and the related documents … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Nodumehlezi, 2022 NY Slip Op 07212, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Here there was a non-jury trial and plaintiff did not prove compliance with RPAPL 1303. The judgment of foreclosure and sale was reversed.

 

You might also like
NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Arbitrator Had the Power to Determine Whether Respondent Insurer Was a Motor Vehicle Insurer Subject to Mandatory Arbitration Pursuant to the No-Fault Insurance Law—The Arbitrator’s Conclusion that the Respondent Insurer Was Not a Motor Vehicle Insurer Had a Rational Basis
Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Dismissal of Complaint​
CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN (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

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL MISCALENDARED THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY... THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF...