You are here: / / BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL...
,

BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of an employee who claimed that the plaintiff’s business records showed that RPAPL 1304 notices were sent by certified and first-class mail. However, the documentary evidence submitted in support of those claims redacted certain tracking numbers and failed to establish, prima facie, that the notices were mailed by first-class mail … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Succes, 2019 NY Slip Op 02058, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY CREATED BY THE CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
Golfer Assumed the Risk of Tripping on Grate in Golf-Cart Path
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, APPOINTED A RECEIVER BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATED UPON EXPEDITED REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO REQUEST A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT AN ORDER BASED UPON AN EXCEPTION TO THE SECRECY PROVSIONS IN TAX LAW SECTION 697, THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER TAX FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION TO RECOVER UNPAID WAGES AND TIPS (SECOND DEPT).
THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE FROM BEHIND FLED THE SCENE BUT WAS IDENTIFIED BY A LICENSE PLATE FOUND AT THE SCENE; DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE BUT DENIED OPERATING IT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THAT ALLEGATION DID NOT OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF PERMISSIVE USE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT... PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FACE PLATE WHICH FELL OFF AN AIR CONDITIONER, ALTHOUGH...