You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The business records upon which the calculations in the referee’s report were based were not produced:

… ]T]he Supreme Court should have denied those branches of JPMorgan’s motion which were to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “[T]he referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records” … . Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Mahone, 2022 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the business records upon which the calculations in the referee’s report are based are not produced, Supreme Court should not confirm the report.

 

You might also like
CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION.
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON THE BASKETBALL COURT WHICH WAS WET WITH CONDENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE RECURRING CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)
STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THEORIES IN THE PLEADINGS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 ABSENT AN ALLEGATION OF AN INTENTIONAL DECEPTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE REPORT OF THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WITH NOTICE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURIES AND ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS; THEREFORE THE CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS; IN ADDITION, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS SPEEDING (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

WHERE CONVICTIONS UNDER MULITPLE INDICTMENTS COME UP FOR REVIEW IN THE SAME... THE EVIDENCE OF “WITNESS ELIMINATION MURDER” WAS INSUFFICIENT; THERE...