You are here: / / THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’...
, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT AVER THAT THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BANK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ default was not demonstrate by the complaint, which was not verified, or by the affidavit from the loan servicer, which did not aver that the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure proceeding:

… Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment and order of reference. “Where, as here, a foreclosure complaint is not verified, CPLR 3215(f) states, among other things, that upon any application for a judgment by default, proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default, and the amount due are to be set forth in an affidavit ‘made by the party'” …  Here, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit executed by a contract management coordinator for the plaintiff’s purported loan servicer. However, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Stiene, 2022 NY Slip Op 01833, Second Dept 3-16-22

​Practice Point: Here, in this foreclosure action, the affidavit from the loan servicer which purported to demonstrate defendants’ default did not demonstrate the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the bank.

 

You might also like
The Requirements of Certificates of Conformity and Authenticity (Re: the Admissibility of Out-of-State Affidavits) Explained
FATHER’S VISITATION RIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, UNTESTED EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT CONFERENCES NOT SUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT; THERFORE WHETHER DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE INQUEST; THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS UNCERTAIN DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE ONE YEAR TIME-LIMIT IN CPLR 3404 FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE AN ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE WHERE THE ACTION WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT WERE PLED, QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STROKE DIAGNOSIS WAS TIMELY AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY DIAGNOSIS DECREASED THE CHANCES OF A BETTER OUTCOME (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS ACTION WHICH INCLUDED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (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

DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS TO THE UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION (USTA)... THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS...