You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS OPPOSITION TO THE BANK’S MOTION...
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS OPPOSITION TO THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD ORIGINALLY ALLEGED IT POSSESSED THE NOTE AND THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; SUBSEQUENTLY THE BANK SUBMITTED A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew his opposition to the bank’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this foreclosure action. In support of its summary judgment motion the bank alleged it had standing based upon possession of the note. However, in support of the bank’s subsequent motion to confirm the referee’s report the bank submitted a lost note affidavit:

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]), and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]).

Here, in support of his cross motion for leave to renew, the borrower had a reasonable justification for his failure to present the new facts in opposition to the original motion, since the plaintiff had previously—and unequivocally—represented that the original note was in Investors’ possession, and only later disclosed that the original note had in fact been lost, without providing any further details as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, and when the note was lost … .

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the borrower’s cross motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the borrower, to strike his answer and counterclaims, and for an order of reference, based on unresolved issues of fact regarding the plaintiff’s standing … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Barbery, 2020 NY Slip Op 04377, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

You might also like
RESTRAINING A PERSON FOR A FEW SECONDS WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PULL THAT PERSON INTO A VEHICLE DOES NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR KIDNAPPING (SECOND DEPT).
Permanent Neglect Established—Mental Illness
Even Though the Landlords Maintained Offices Adjacent to the Leased Property (a Restaurant), the Plaintiff Was Not Able to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Landlords Retained Control Over the Leased Premises Such that the Landlords Would Be Liable for an Assault by Employees and Patrons of the Tenant-Restaurant
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE PLYWOOD WHICH FLEXED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS OVER A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE OR TRENCH; LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Supervision of Student Could Not Have Prevented Injury
THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE THERAPIST THAT THE CHILDREN SUFFERED FROM PTSD, EXPERIENCED TRAUMA, AND EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO STOP SEEING THEIR FATHER, COUPLED WITH THE CHILDREN’S STATEMENTS THAT THEY WITNESSED ABUSE, WARRANTED TERMINATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS WITH FATHER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Automobile Policy Does Not Cover Injury to Passerby Bitten by a Dog Which Was Inside a Vehicle

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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED... EVEN THOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED, THE EXISTENCE OF...