HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal | Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden, its motion should have been denied …. ORDERED that the order dated January 5, 2015, is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint …. and so much of the order dated December 17, 2014, as granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment is vacated … - FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal | Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden, its motion should have been denied …. ORDERED that the order dated January 5, 2015, is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint …. and so much of the order dated December 17, 2014, as granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment is vacated …

Posted on15 September 2016.

HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal | Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden, its motion should have been denied …. ORDERED that the order dated January 5, 2015, is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint …. and so much of the order dated December 17, 2014, as granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment is vacated …

Decided on September 14, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P. 
SHERI S. ROMAN 
JEFFREY A. COHEN 
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2015-07269 
2015-07270 
(Index No. 9866/10) 

[*1] HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., respondent,

v

Phillippa Royal, appellant, et al., defendants.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated December 17, 2014, is dismissed, as the portion of the order appealed from was superseded by the order dated January 5, 2015; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated January 5, 2015, is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer of the defendant Phillippa Royal, to amend the caption, and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff is denied, and so much of the order dated December 17, 2014, as granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment is vacated; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.

. . .

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Roesner under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), and, thus, failed to establish the appellant’s default in payment under the note. “A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures”

. . .

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden, its motion should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the appellant’s opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. MASS. | Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage Co. | Given our conclusion that the foreclosure sale was VOID . . . The declaratory judgment of the Superior Court and the orders allowing Wilion’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint are reversed. SJC-11742 LINDA PINTI & another1 vs. EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.,...
  2. BANK OF HAWAI’I V MOSTOUFI | ICA OF HAWAI’I – Plaintiff’s Motion of Summary Judgment; Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale Filed 10/1/12 & 2/25/13 Judgment are VACATED IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF...
  3. MATSUMURA v BANK OF AMERICA | Another Victory in Hawaii US District Court! Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment via DUBIN LAW OFFICES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT...
  4. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Quadrozzi | NYSC – Federal National Mortgage Association’s motion for leave to renew for summary judgment, is denied Decided on July 30, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County  ...
  5. Judge reversed his own ruling that had granted summary judgment to GMAC Mortgage (DAVID J. STERN) My am news could never arrive too early from one...

This post was written by:

- who has written 11546 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author


One Response to “HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal | Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden, its motion should have been denied …. ORDERED that the order dated January 5, 2015, is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint …. and so much of the order dated December 17, 2014, as granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment is vacated …”

  1. Michael says:
    09/15/2016 at 2:33 pm

    Wish New Jersey would rule on the law or at least see what’s going on every where else.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply


Advert

Archives

Please Support Me!







Write your comment within 199 characters.

All Of These Are Troll Comments

175,142 spam blocked by Akismet