You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS OF THE NOTE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS OF THE NOTE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence concerning the allegedly lost note. The bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Among the evidence offered by the plaintiff was a lost note affidavit, signed by a representative of Beneficial Homeowner Service Corporation (hereinafter Beneficial), the purported predecessor-in-interest to the plaintiff, stating that the note was deemed lost as of November 14, 2013, and that Beneficial was “in possession of the original Note prior to its whereabouts becoming undeterminable.” The evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was ever in physical possession of the subject note … .

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate its ownership of the subject note by written assignment. The plaintiff submitted a document dated June 12, 2015, purporting to be a written assignment of the appellants’ mortgage and underlying note to the plaintiff by Beneficial, signed by Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Caliber), as Beneficial’s “attorney in fact.” However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate as a matter of law the validity of the written assignment, because the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence of Caliber’s authority to execute the assignment as Beneficial’s attorney-in-fact … . …

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the facts that prevented production of the lost note … . The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff failed to identify who conducted the search for the lost note … , and failed to explain “when or how the note was lost” … , but instead described only approximately when the search for the note was conducted and when the loss was discovered, which was “on or about” the date the affidavit was executed.

In light of the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the requirements of UCC 3-804, we need not reach the parties’ further contentions regarding the plaintiff’s standing to commence this action … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Rose, 2019 NY Slip Op 07440, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

You might also like
THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401) FINDING THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY LIABLE FOR A BEDBUG INFESTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BUSINESS RECORDS SUBMITTED BY A PERSON WHO DOES NOT ALLEGE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTY’S RECORD-KEEPING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT PROVIDED BY A NON-EMPLOYEE IN THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED DOWN WHEN MALL SHOPPERS PANICKED AND FLED BECAUSE A FALLING DISPLAY SOUNDED LIKE GUNSHOTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE PANIC AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE PANIC PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE THE OWNERS AND SECURITY COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building
THE CONDITIONAL DIRECTIVE THAT FATHER BE AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IF MOTHER DID NOT RETURN FROM SWEDEN WITH THE CHILD IS NOT ENFORCEABLE; A CHANGE IN CUSTODY MUST BE BASED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PUNISH A PARENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FRONT DRIVER STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON (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

PLAINTIFF BANK SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN INADMISSIBLE FORM AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE... JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT; ISSUE HAD...