You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS...
,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s representative relied on business records which were not identified or attached to demonstrate defendant’s (Huertas’s) default in this foreclosure action. Therefore the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Crystal Dunbar, a foreclosure specialist of … the mortgage loan servicer for the plaintiff’s assignee … to show that Huertas had defaulted under the terms of the subject note by failing to make required monthly payments. In her affidavit, Dunbar stated that Huertas “defaulted under their note for $227,136.00 owing to the Plaintiff . . . by having failed to make monthly payments on September 01, 2009 to date.” Dunbar did not state that she had personal knowledge of the default, but averred that she had “personal knowledge of the [p]laintiff’s records and record making practices, and how such records [were] made, used and kept.” Dunbar’s affidavit was sufficient to provide a foundation for the admission, under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay (see CPLR 4518[a]), of records related to the subject mortgage … . However, Dunbar’s purported knowledge of Huertas’s default was based upon her review of unidentified business records, which she failed to attach to her affidavit. Accordingly, her assertions regarding Huertas’s default, without the business records upon which she relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Huertas, 2021 NY Slip Op 04005, First Dept 6-23-21

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ELICITATION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE, LACK OF PREPARATION, AND FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT.
AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS 14 IN 1990 WHEN HE MURDERED A CLASSMATE AND THE CHILD SHE WAS BABYSITTING, THE PAROLE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED PAROLE FOR THE FIFTH TIME, THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THE BOARD CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DID NOT BASE THEIR DECISION SOLELY ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Allowed.
Summary Judgment Can Not Be Granted Based on Affidavit By Someone with No Personal Knowledge of the Facts, Even If Factual Information Not Disputed
​IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, A REFEREE’S REPORT BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE COURT (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 HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT... THE CITY CHARTER PROVISION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF A PENDING TAX FORECLOSURE...