You are here: / / DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE...
, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THE BANK HAD ARGUED SHE WAS NOT A BORROWER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was a “borrower” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 and therefore she was entitled to the required 90-day notice, which she did not receive. That bank argued that she was not a borrower because only her deceased husband signed the note. However she was named on the mortgage and she signed the mortgage:

While RPAPL 1304 provides that the notice shall be sent to the “borrower,” that term is not defined in the statute (see RPAPL 1304). It is undisputed that only the defendant’s deceased husband, Solomon Forman, is identified as a “borrower” in the note which is secured by the mortgage. That is not determinative in this case. In the mortgage instrument, the defendant is referred to as a borrower. On the first page of the mortgage instrument, under the heading entitled “Words Used Often in this Document,” the defendant is identified, along with her husband, as ” Borrower.'” The defendant is also designated as “Borrower” under her signature on the signature page of the mortgage instrument. While the plaintiff contends that this standard mortgage form mischaracterizes the defendant as a borrower, any ambiguities in the language of the document must be construed against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is the party who supplied the document … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Forman, 2019 NY Slip Op 07045, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

You might also like
THE INSURER IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT MEET ITS HEAVY BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE ITS INSURED’S NON-COOPERATION SUCH THAT THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF A LEFT TURN TRAFFIC SIGNAL WAS BASED ON A STUDY FINDING THE SIGNAL WAS NOT WARRANTED; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY IN THIS HIGHWAY-PLANNING ACTION BY A PEDESTRIAN WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE MAKING A LEFT TURN (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
AN “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT HAS DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAN A “GOOD CAUSE” EXTENSION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE FOR THE MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE-FORCE... THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF...