You are here: / / BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA...
,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET.

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action because the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule were not met:

Here, the plaintiff attempted to establish its standing by submitting the affidavit of Kelly Thompson, an Assistant V.P., Operations Team Manager, at Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter BANA), the servicer of the defendant Juliet Willis’s loan on behalf of the plaintiff. Thompson averred, in relevant part, that her affidavit was based upon her review of BANA’s business records, and that upon review of such records, the note was physically transferred to the plaintiff “in or about March 2007.” The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Thompson were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) because Thompson, an employee of BANA, did not attest that she was personally familiar [*2]with the plaintiff’s recordkeeping practices and procedures … . Bank of N.Y. v Willis, 2017 NY Slip Op 03468, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET)

You might also like
WHERE THE ESSENCE OF A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION, THE CRITERIA FOR A “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION ARE NOT MET (SECOOND DEPT
ALTHOUGH THE INSURER DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM UNTIL 23 MONTHS AFTER THE CAR ACCIDENT, IT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY AND DID NOT COMMENCE A TIMELY INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIM; THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS WATCHING FOOTBALL PRACTICE FROM THE SIDELINES WHEN A BLOCKING SLED, PUSHED BY SEVERAL PLAYERS, VEERED OFF TO THE SIDE AND RAN OVER PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIES TO SPECTATORS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE MAY HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, THEY WERE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PHYSICAL CONDITION AFTER A STROKE WARRANTED A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF HIS SORA RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FOR TWO DISTINCT REASONS, THE 2007 COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND THEREFORE DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THE SECOND ACTION, BROUGHT BY A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WAS STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE INITIAL ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY UNDER CPLR 205 [a] (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 (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

CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE...