You are here: / / THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL...
, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was sufficient, but the bank’s proof of standing to bring the foreclosure action was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a person employed by the plaintiff as a business operations analyst, who described the procedure by which mailings were documented in a correspondence log, and laid a foundation for consideration of business records he submitted. Annexed to the affidavit was a copy of excerpts of the correspondence log, which indicated that notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304 were sent to the defendant by certified and first-class mail. The plaintiff also submitted, inter alia, a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS certified mail barcode, and a copy of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a USPS first-class mail barcode, along with copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices sent to the defendant. …

… [T]he plaintiff submitted a copy of the note, along with a paper, which was labeled an allonge, containing an endorsement in blank. However, the plaintiff did not submit evidence to indicate that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof, as required under UCC 3-202(2) … . Moreover, at the time the action was commenced, the plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff did not append a copy of the purported allonge … . The affidavits submitted by the plaintiff do not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action … .  Citimortgage, Inc. v Ustick, 2020 NY Slip Op 06489, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

You might also like
14-YEAR-OLD PLAYING CATCH ON A SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM A TWO TO FIVE INCH DEPRESSION IN THE FIELD (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Termination of a Firefighter Runs from the Effective Date of Termination, Not the Date of Notification
Criteria for Preemption by Martin Act
Insurance Law 5214 Does Not Apply Where Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) Is Sued Directly Because the Identity of the Driver Who Caused Plaintiff’s Injury Is Unknown/Default Judgment Against MVAIC Properly Entered
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A BUS WHICH VEERED OFF THE HIGHWAY IN SNOWY CONDITIONS, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury
Court Can Not Order Treatment as Condition of Future Visitation—Okay to Order Treatment as Component of Supervised Visitation
District Attorney’s Office Did Not Adequately Justify Its Denial of Inmate’s Requests for Color Photographs and Unredacted Documents Re: 18-Year-Old Murder Prosecution

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

WHERE A LADDER SHIFTS OR SLIDES FOR NO APPARENT REASON A VIOLATION OF LABOR... PLAINTIFF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE HE WAS LICENSED IN ROCKLAND...