You are here: / / IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306...
, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense (alleging failure to comply with RPAPL 1306) should not have been granted to the plaintiff in this foreclosure action. Because there was no proof of when the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed, proof that plaintiff had filed papers with the superintendent of financial services pursuant to RPAPL 1306 was insufficient. RPAPL 1306 requires filing within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice. But the date of mailing was not proven:

… [I]n the absence of evidence establishing when the plaintiff mailed the notices required by RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff could not establish, as a matter of law, that it complied with the requirement of RPAPL 1306 to file with the superintendent of financial services within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304. Thus, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defendant’s fifth affirmative defense as alleged a failure to comply with RPAPL 1306…. . PROF-2013-S3 Legal Title Trust V v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01204, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if there is no proof when the RPAPL 1304 notice of default was mailed, the bank can’t prove the papers filed pursuant to RPAPL 1306 were filed within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice (which is a requirement of strict compliance with RPAPL 1306).

 

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE REQUEST TO PRESENT THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).
Grabbing and Spinning a Person Does Not Constitute Unlawful Imprisonment​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER NEW YORK OR YEMEN WAS THE CHILDREN’S HOME STATE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Properly Denied a Motion to Approve a Settlement of a Proposed Non-Opt-Out Class Action—Shareholders Who Objected to the Settlement Were Entitled to Opt Out to Preserve Their Damages Claims
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

FATHER’S PETITION TO SUSPEND CHILD SUPPORT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT... THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE...