You are here: / / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL LOAN...
, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL LOAN DOCUMENT AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the original loan document was not provided and the lost note affidavit was insufficient:

A plaintiff moving for leave to enter a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant’s failure to answer or appear … . Pursuant to UCC 3-804, “[t]he owner of an instrument which is lost, whether by destruction, theft or otherwise, may maintain an action in his [or her] own name and recover from any party liable thereon upon due proof of his [or her] ownership, the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and its terms.” Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth the facts that prevented the production of the original home equity line of credit agreement … . The lost note affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants failed to state when the search for the credit agreement occurred, did not identify who conducted the search for the credit agreement, or explain when or how the credit agreement was lost … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Morton, 2024 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, in moving for a default judgment the bank did not provide the original loan document and did not provide a sufficient lost note affidavit. The motion should have been denied, criteria explained.

 

You might also like
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER BRAKE-FAILURE WAS THE CAUSE, THE DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE WAS UNANTICIPATED AND REASONABLE CARE WAS TAKEN TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD WORKING ORDER; NOT THE CASE HERE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE ALLEGATION AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ON HIS BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION UPHELD (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AND WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; THE BUS WAS BEHIND PLAINTIFF’S SCOOTER AND BOTH THE BUS AND THE SCOOTER APPARENTLY CHANGED LANES AT THE SAME TIME (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Pre-Action Disclosure and Defamation Explained
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THE FIGHT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED BROKE OUT ON THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION MATTER, ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED.
TENANT’S MOTION TO REMOVE AN EVICTION PROCEEDING FROM CIVIL COURT AND CONSOLIDATE IT WITH A BREACH-OF-LEASE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LEASE PROVISIONS PRECLUDED THE COUNTERCLAIMS AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING, BUT THAT RELIEF IS AVAILABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BECAUSE THEY OFFERED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST INSPECTED (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

IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED BY A PARTY IT IS WAIVED... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S CONTRIBUTORY...