You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT ADEQUATE PROOF THAT...
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT ADEQUATE PROOF THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO AND RECIEVED BY THE DEFENDANT AS REQUIRED BY THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove the notice of default was mailed to defendant as required by the mortgage agreement:

The plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to establish that a notice of default in accordance with section 22 of the mortgage agreement was sent to the defendant as required by section 15 of the mortgage agreement. Section 15 of the mortgage agreement provides that notice to the borrower is considered sent “when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to [the borrower’s] notice address if sent by other means.” The affidavit of mailing was insufficient to establish a mailing by either first-class or certified mail. Although [the affidavit] asserted personal knowledge of the mailing, the affidavit was dated nine months after the date on which the notices of default were purportedly mailed, and the affidavit was unsupported by any contemporaneous documentation … . The certified mail receipts submitted by the plaintiff were not stamped or postmarked, and the domestic return receipts were unsigned. Thus, there was inadequate proof that the notices of default were actually delivered to the defendant. Further, although mailing may also be established by proof of a standard office mailing procedure … , in her affidavit [the foreclosure specialist] failed to make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff’s counsel, which apparently mailed the notices of default … and, in any event, failed to describe a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Singh, 2025 NY Slip Op 04938, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Once again, failure to prove mandatory notices were properly mailed and received by the defendant in a foreclosure action required reversal of the judgment of foreclosure.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN; TOWN POLICE HAD CONFISCATED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S HUSBAND’S GUN AFTER SHE TOLD THE POLICE HE HAD ASSAULTED HER; THE TOWN SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED THE GUN TO HER HUSBAND AFTER LEARNING HE WAS A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER; HER HUSBAND THEN SHOT AND KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND TOOK HIS OWN LIFE (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRUSTEES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR LACHES DEFENSES TO THE ACTION SEEKING AN ESTATE ACCOUNTING; THE TRUSTEES DID NOT OPENLY REPUDIATE THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE TIME DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN FOR EITHER DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN APPEARANCE AND DOES NOT WAIVE THE LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DEFENSE; INFANT DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPLR 309; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT)
HERE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
RENOVATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES DISQUALIFIES HOMEOWNER FROM HOMEOWNERS’ EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6);QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOMEOWNER’S INTENTION AT TIME OF INJURY.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHIDH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR IDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
OPENINGS THROUGH WHICH A WORKER’S BODY COULD NOT COMPLETELY FALL NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6).

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 JUDGE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN TO... DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY FABRICATED...