You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERTY...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERTY MAILED TO DEFENDANT; THE MAILING WAS DONE BY A THIRD PARTY AND NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE THIRD-PARTY’S MAILING PROCEDURE WAS PRESENTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was properly mailed to defendant. The mailing was done by a third-party and no first-hand evidence of that party’s mailing procedure was presented:

… [T]he affiant did not attest that she was familiar with the standard office mailing procedures of Covius Services, LLC, the third-party vendor that sent the RPAPL 1303 and 1304 notices on behalf of plaintiff. The affidavit therefore did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed … . The affidavit also did not address the nature of plaintiff’s relationship with Covius, nor did it address whether Covius’s records were incorporated into plaintiff’s own records or routinely relied upon in plaintiff’s business … . Thus, under the circumstances presented, the tracking numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices did not by themselves suffice to establish proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Merino, 2026 NY Slip Op 02616, First Dept 4-28-26

Practice Point: If the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure is done by a third-party, first-hand knowledge of that party’s mailing procedure must be presented.​

 

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFFS-PHYSICIANS ALLEGED THE FORMS THE EMPLOYER REQUIRED THEM TO SIGN CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION (TO THE EMPLOYER) OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE DEMUTUALIZATION OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER WERE INVALID (FIRST DEPT).
Allowing Testimony that Defendant’s Name Was Mentioned in an Out-of-Court Conversation About the Underlying Assault Was (Harmless) Error/The Confrontation Clause Was Not Implicated Because the Hearsay Was Not Testimonial/Admission of the Hearsay Was Not Justified as “Completing the Narrative” or “Preventing Jury Confusion”
ALTHOUGH THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF TWO PRIOR BURGLARIES WAS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO BURGLARIZE THE BUILDING IN WHICH HE WAS FOUND BY THE POLICE, THE EXTENSIVE, DETAILED EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR BURGLARIES RENDERED THE EVIDENCE TOO PREJUDICIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
A MARRIAGE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A MARRIAGE LICENSE WILL BE DEEMED VALID IN NEW YORK IF THE MARRIAGE IS “SOLEMNIZED;” HERE THE CEREMONY PERFORMED BY THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DEEMED A “FAMILY BLESSING,” NOT A “MARRIAGE,” BECAUSE THE “SOLEMNIZATION” REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE THE ELEVATOR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER TENANT, THE LEASE PROVISION REQUIRING THE TENANT TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES REGARDLESS OF DEFAULT OR MERIT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL RESEARCH (LEXISNEXIS) CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST 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

AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR APPEAL,... THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S...