You are here: / / THE AFFIDAVITS DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 WAS ACTUALLY MAILED TO DEFENDANTS;...
, , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 WAS ACTUALLY MAILED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient. Therefore plaintiff in this foreclosure action was not entitled to summary judgment:

Since HSBC failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, it failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Cutaj, 2022 NY Slip Op 00858, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issues and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00896, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Davidson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00901, Second Dept 2-9-22 which also held the bank’s failure to comply with the “one envelope” rule for the RPAPL 1304 notice can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

You might also like
SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER.
DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; THE TIRE ALLEGEDLY FAILED LEADING TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA; DRIVER SUED US TIRES; US TIRES SUED GOODYEAR AND FORD, BOTH OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS, SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION; NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER GOODYEAR AND FORD IN THE US TIRES SUIT (SECOND DEPT). ​
CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO CARE FOR BURNS ON THE CHILD’S LEGS WERE GROSSLY INADEQUATE, THOSE MEASURES DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING DEFENDANT DID NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN ARTICLE 8 FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS; ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED BY A PARTY IT IS WAIVED AND CANNOT BE ASSERTED, SUA SPONTE, BY A JUDGE; IN ADDITION, A JUDGE CANNOT DECIDE A MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND HOLD A MEMBER OF DEFENDANT LLC PERSONALLY LIABLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LLC MEMBER PERSONALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (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 RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INLUDE A LIST OF FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE...