You are here: / / IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S...
,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S CALCULATIONS WERE BASED WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE REFEREE’S AFFIDAVIT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been accepted because the business records upon which the calculations were based were not attached to the affidavit:

 … [A] referee’s computations based on the “review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … . Here, the referee based his calculations upon documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including the note and mortgage, as well as an affidavit of amount due and owing, submitted in support of the motion to confirm the referee’s report. However, the affidavit of amount due and owing does not identify the business records upon which the affiant relied in order to compute the total amount due on the mortgage, and there are no such records annexed thereto. Consequently, the referee’s findings in that regard were not substantially supported by the record … . M&T Bank v Bonilla, 2023 NY Slip Op 01989, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: To the extent an affidavit refers to business records which are not attached the affidavit is hearsay.

 

You might also like
SORA Determination Made at Sentencing (Which Included Incarceration) Invalid
THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE TO ADMIT IMPROPERLY SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY.
IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR INJURY IN UTERO WHERE, AS HERE, THE CHILD WAS BORN ALIVE (SECOND DEPT).
Jury Instructions Which Lumped Counts Together and Did Not Give the Jury the Information Necessary to Distinguish One Count from Another Mandated a New Trial
FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBLIGATIONS RE: HAVING A PERJURIOUS DEFENDANT TESTIFY IN NARRATIVE FORM.

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

IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT... ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTENTS OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE IN COURT...