You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED...
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Brown, an employee of Nationstar, the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who stated that the plaintiff had mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice in accordance with the plaintiff’s practices and procedures. However, Brown then stated that her conclusion was based on her review of Nationstar’s file, and on Nationstar’s mailing practices and procedures. Thus, Brown’s affidavit failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to who actually mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice, and the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Matsuoka, 2023 NY Slip Op 00230, Second Dept 1-18-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the bank doesn’t prove who mailed the notice of foreclosure as required by RPAPL 1304 the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

 

You might also like
THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, HOMEOWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CONTROL AND SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK OR DID NOT CREATE OR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON TO APPROACH DEFENDANT AND REQUEST INFORMATION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–No Notice of Wet Condition Where Plaintiff Fell
THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER; EVEN IF THE BUILDER WERE A NECESSARY PARTY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED THE BUILDER ITSELF PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 (b) RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTION, WHICH STEMMED FROM PLAINTIFF’S BEING DROPPED IN THE DELIVERY ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
ALLOCUTION CAST DOUBT ABOUT GUILT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AND WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; THE BUS WAS BEHIND PLAINTIFF’S SCOOTER AND BOTH THE BUS AND THE SCOOTER APPARENTLY CHANGED LANES AT THE SAME TIME (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 TEN-MONTH DELAY BEFORE SEEKING TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S... PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A STOREFRONT WINDOW IN DEFENDANT PLANET ROSE’S...