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

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and therefore was not entitled to summary judgment:

The plaintiff … failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its compliance with RPAPL 1304, in that it failed to establish proof of the requisite mailing. The affidavit of Sarah Stonehocker, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo, the plaintiff’s loan servicer, was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the borrowers in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. Stonehocker averred that she had personal knowledge of Wells Fargo’s record-keeping practices and procedures, but she did not attest to having personal knowledge of the record-keeping practices and standard office mailing procedures of Walz Facility (hereinafter Walz), the entity, that according to tracking information printouts, mailed the RPAPL 1304 notices … . Nor did she attest that Walz’s records were incorporated into Wells Fargo’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Stonehocker’s affidavit failed to establish “proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … .

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 since it failed to demonstrate that it sent an individually addressed RPAPL 1304 notice to each borrower, as required by the statute … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Reddy, 2023 NY Slip Op 05417, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Once again the bank’s failure to prove compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 resulted in reversal of summary judgment in this foreclosure action.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED: ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE ISSUE CAN BE DECIDED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE WHERE PLAINTIFF MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WAS NOT PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) AND WAS THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR THE 90-DAY “SAFE HARBOR” EXTENSION TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE NYVRA ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-CITIZENS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT MAY HAVE LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; HOWEVER IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE MOTION TO TOLL THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
DAMAGES IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE FOR A TORN MENISCUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S DOMINANT HAND ($25,000 FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING) WERE INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPLR 4404(a) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (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

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS NO EXPRESS INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN... DECEDENT’S SON’S ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL...