You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT ADEQUATE PROOF THAT...
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT ADEQUATE PROOF THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO AND RECIEVED BY THE DEFENDANT AS REQUIRED BY THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove the notice of default was mailed to defendant as required by the mortgage agreement:

The plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to establish that a notice of default in accordance with section 22 of the mortgage agreement was sent to the defendant as required by section 15 of the mortgage agreement. Section 15 of the mortgage agreement provides that notice to the borrower is considered sent “when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to [the borrower’s] notice address if sent by other means.” The affidavit of mailing was insufficient to establish a mailing by either first-class or certified mail. Although [the affidavit] asserted personal knowledge of the mailing, the affidavit was dated nine months after the date on which the notices of default were purportedly mailed, and the affidavit was unsupported by any contemporaneous documentation … . The certified mail receipts submitted by the plaintiff were not stamped or postmarked, and the domestic return receipts were unsigned. Thus, there was inadequate proof that the notices of default were actually delivered to the defendant. Further, although mailing may also be established by proof of a standard office mailing procedure … , in her affidavit [the foreclosure specialist] failed to make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff’s counsel, which apparently mailed the notices of default … and, in any event, failed to describe a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Singh, 2025 NY Slip Op 04938, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Once again, failure to prove mandatory notices were properly mailed and received by the defendant in a foreclosure action required reversal of the judgment of foreclosure.

 

You might also like
THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
There Was a Rational Bases for Fire District Board of Commissioners’ Rejection of Petitioner’s Bid to Supply a Radio Dispatch System—Court Cannot Substitute Its Own Judgment for the Board’s
INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER AND WITNESSED A TRUCK STRIKE AND KILL HER BROTHER; SHE ALLEGED SEVERE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA; DEFENDANT’S DISCLOSURE DEMANDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT AND INSTRAGRAM ACCOUNTS, AS WELL AS THE PHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES, OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FRIENDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT WAS AFFIXED TO THE NOTE, A STANDING REQUIREMENT, WAS NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS ON APPEAL AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
A FOIL REQUEST FOR A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) MEMO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO ANNUL A ZBA RULING; MATTER REMITTED FOR REVIEW OF THE MEMO TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AS INTER-AGENCY OR INTRA-AGENCY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON FATHER OR FATHER’S COUNSEL, THE TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER NEVER BEGAN RUNNING (SECOND DEPT). ​
​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE FUNCTIONS AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MOTION HERE WAS UNTIMELY (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

THE JUDGE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN TO... DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY FABRICATED...