You are here: / / ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS...
, ,

ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT CAREFULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE FLAWS IN THE PROOF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof requirements for sending the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure to the defendants were not met. This frequently recurring error was carefully explained by the Second Department, perhaps in an effort to instruct the bar:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit of Kimberly Dutchess, an authorized representative of M & T Bank (hereinafter M & T), the plaintiff’s loan servicer and attorney-in-fact, along with a power of attorney authorizing M & T to act on the plaintiff’s behalf … . Although Dutchess laid a proper foundation for the admission of various business records annexed to her affidavit, inter alia, by attesting to her “familiar[ity] with business records maintained by M & T for the purpose of servicing mortgage loans,” she “failed . . . to attest that [s]he personally mailed the subject notices or that [s]he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of [M & T]” at the time the notices were sent … . Nor was Dutchess’s assertion that she “acquired personal knowledge of the matters stated in [her] affidavit by examining the [relevant] business records” sufficient to demonstrate her personal knowledge of M & T’s mailing procedures, since “a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge” … . Therefore, Dutchess “failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

Moreover, although Dutchess’s affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the business records annexed thereto, the content of those records did not demonstrate, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . The only purported proof of first-class mailing attached to Dutchess’s affidavit was a letter log, which “failed to establish that the 90-day notice was actually mailed to both of the defendants . . . by first-class mail” … . Among other issues, the letter log did not contain any information regarding the method of mailing for any of the documents contained therein. It also contained only one entry for the 90-day notice allegedly mailed to both of the defendants in February 2018, notwithstanding that a “plaintiff must separately mail a 90-day notice to each borrower as a condition precedent to commencing the foreclosure action” … . Furthermore, although the letter log listed Alexander W. Swanson III as the borrower, it did not mention Nancy L. Swanson’s name, and the plaintiff did not provide any records showing that the 90-day notice was mailed to Nancy L. Swanson by first-class mail … . Notably, “[i]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . In any event, even if Dutchess had established that she had personal knowledge of M & T’s mailing procedures, her affidavit did not sufficiently clarify any of these issues … . Since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that it mailed the 90-day notices to both of the defendants by first-class mail, it failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v Swanson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04952, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: It is not easy to prove compliance with the foreclosure notice requirements in RPAPL 1304 by affidavit. The same flaws in the proof have been the basis for foreclosure reversals for a decade now.​

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT SEE PLAINTIFF’S BRAKE LIGHTS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S GENERAL AWARENESS THAT PUDDLES FORMED IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL AND THAT WATER TURNS TO ICE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether the Three-Year Statute of Limitations for Professional Malpractice Was Tolled by the “Continuous Representation” Doctrine

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

THE APPLICATION TO TREAT THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM (NOI) AS A... IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS...