You are here: / / THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES...
, ,

THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES AND DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE ATTACHED BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS PROPERLY MAILED, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure, determined the plaintiff did not prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure, a condition precedent for foreclosure. The affidavit did not demonstrate the affiant had personal knowledge of the relevant mailing procedures and did not provide an adequate foundation for relevant business records:

… [T]he affidavits submitted in support of Bank of America’s second motion … for summary judgment on the complaint … did not establish the affiants’ personal knowledge of the standard office mailing procedures of LenderLive, the third-party vendor that apparently sent the RPAPL 1304 notices on behalf of Bank of America … . The affidavits also “failed to address the nature of [Bank of America’s] relationship with LenderLive and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into [Bank of America’s] own records or routinely relied upon in its business” … . Bank of America thus “failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive” … .. Accordingly, Bank of America failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of Bank of America’s second motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference. U.S. Bank N.A. v Bravo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02953, Second Dept 5-14-25

Same issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2025 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Any affidavit submitted by the bank in a foreclosure action to prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure must demonstrate the affiant’s personal knowledge of the mailing procedures and must lay a foundation for the admissibility of any business records relied upon to prove proper mailing.

 

You might also like
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action, Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted, Explained
Family Court Award of Sole Custody to Mother Reversed, Sole Custody Awarded to Father
Child’s Move To Connecticut Did Not Strip New York of Jurisdiction and Did Not Justify Finding that New York Was an Inconvenient Forum
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH A PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER, THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A VAILD 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF DELIVERY OR MAILING OF THE SUMMONS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH DEPRIVES THE COURT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SERVED PARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; THE PETITION WAS GRANTED; BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED ON WHETHER MODIFICATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER GRANTING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE ALLEGED FREQUENCY OF THE ABUSE BY A TEACHER... ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER...