You are here: / / NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED,...
, ,

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the proof of notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was insufficient and the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure proceeding should not have been granted:

​

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Monica I. Montalvo Rivas, its vice president of loan documentation, stating that she had “reviewed the 90 day pre-foreclosure notice sent to Borrower on October 31, 2013 to the last known address of Borrower, which is the residence that is [the] subject of the Mortgage, by first class mail and certified mail.” Annexed to Rivas’s affidavit was a copy of the notice, along with a copy of a “Certified Mail Receipt” containing the defendant’s address and a “Certified Mail Number.” The receipt contained no language indicating that it was issued by the United States Postal Service. “While mailing may be proved by documents meeting the requirements of the business exception records exception to the rule against hearsay,” here, Rivas did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . In any event, the plaintiff failed to submit any proof substantiating Rivas’s assertion that the notice was mailed to the defendant by first class mail. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Trupia, 2017 NY Slip Op 03986, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

FORECLOSURE (NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

​

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW IN THE UNDERLYING PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE SUCCEEDED ON THE MERITS OF THAT ACTION; DEFENDANT ATTORNEY WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE INSTANT LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PARTIES’ CONSENT TO A DNA TEST DID NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PATERNITY NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO WAS THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT FRAUD WAS NOT ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).
THE STOP OF THE TAXI IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ALL OFFENSES BASED UPON A PROMISE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES, ALL CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED MEDICAL RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR ANKLE INJURY WERE MATERIAL AND NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
CORRIDOR FORMED BY LUMBER AND MATERIALS PILED ON EITHER SIDE WAS A PASSAGEWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, DEFENDANT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6).

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

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED,... PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE...