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
Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been Granted
CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING AN EXPRESS EASEMENT AND A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXPLAINED, PARTY PROPERLY SANCTIONED FOR COUNSEL’S FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPLAINT APPROVED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SETTLE THE ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERED THE ACTION ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATE HAS NOT PREEMPTED A MUNICIPALITY’S ABILITY TO REGULATE THE PROCESSING OF WASTE; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE HAD ISSUED A PERMIT ALLOWING THE PROCESSING OF 500 TONS OF WASTE PER DAY, THE VILLAGE’S ACTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION REDUCING THE ALLOWED AMOUNT OF WASTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.
CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED DESPITE FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT IT BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (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...